Institute of Education

NEOLIBERALISM AND INCLUSIVITY IN INDONESIAN

HIGHER EDUCATION

AYU ANASTASYA RACHMAN

MA in Education and International Development

UCL Institute of Education

August, 31st 2017

This dissertation may be made available to the general public for borrowing, photocopying
or consultation without the prior consent of the author.
"A university that failed to educate a fair percentage of student from any significant social
group in society, no matter how ‘justified’ on the basis of criteria such as grade and test
scores, would have defaulted on its primary duty to ensure the preservation of a stable
polity”

(Wilkins, 1996)

2
Acknowledgements

This dissertation represents not only my work, but also a year of fascinating experiences,
lesson-learned, inspirations and encouragement from my family, friends, and colleagues.
Therefore, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to all those remarkable people whose
motivation, comments, questions, and constructive criticism, in both personal and academic,
have driven me to finish this work. Inevitably, however, the following names might not
encompass all the people. For that, I humbly wish those whose names are missing to forgive
me and take my profound appreciation for their influence on my study.
I want to thank my brilliant supervisor, Prof Moses Oketch for his intellectual guidance,
relatable research on higher education, insights, feedback, and unrelenting confidence
towards my ability as an education scholar. Also to the other incredible teachers at UCL IOE:
Prof Elaine Unterhalter, Dr Tristan McCowan, Dr Alex Lewis, Prof Paul Morris, Prof Roy Carr
Hill whose thought and research have enriched my perspective around Higher Education and
Development, particularly in the context of developing-country. To my fellow scholar of MA
Education and International Development and Indonesian friends at the IOE, thank you for
making this whole year here in London unforgettably meaningful.
For this dissertation, I would also like to thank LPDP (Indonesian Endowment Fund for
Education) and Indonesian government for awarding me with full Master Program
Scholarship, funded this research and my presentation on education conferences overseas
and all other support so I can carry on. Finally, to the most amazing parents that I could ask
for, first and forever-long teachers, Dr Azis Rachman and Dr Titin Dunggio who have
continuously embraced my amusement towards academic inquiries, allowed me to flourish
myself even if it took a thousand miles away from home and put their faith on whatever I
desire. I am humbled to be your daughter and Insha Allah until Jannah. Also to my warmth
siblings, Bayu and Tiara and all of my loved ones, thank you beyond words.

Ayu Anastasya Rachman

University College London IOE
London, August 2017.

3
Abstract

Neoliberalism key-principles of deregulation and marketisation of Higher Education has been

argued to establish more efficient, accountable, and quality HEIs (Bok D. , 2003). This study
aims to discover whether neoliberalism-driven agenda has resulted in the more inclusive
higher education system in Indonesia. Using qualitative case study at two universities (public
and private), to find out: 1) the perception and practice of inclusivity after the autonomisation
of HE and 2) the incentives that lead their practice.
The conception of Inclusivity in Indonesian Higher Education is examined particularly from the
provision of equitable access to quality education for learners who come from a different
range of age, from the low socioeconomic background and the deprived regions of 3T
Tertinggal, Terdepan, Terluar (leading edge, outer and left behind). The data gathered from
triangulations method of semi-structured interview, documentary record and literature
review, with thematic analysis to examine the data.
I argue that there has been an endorsement of pro-inclusivity in Indonesian Higher
Education’s policy-text. However, in reality, the higher education governance which
underpinned by neoliberalism has led to: one, the deduction of government spending in
higher education which prompted the HEIS to rely more on a private source; two, the
expansion of higher education institution with low-quality assurance. In the case study, the
idea of inclusivity is ‘naturally’ narrowed to the accessibility of equal opportunities to access
HEI, and both HEIs place the student admission and scholarship based on merit assessment
by excellence. The allocation of scholarship for the student from a low socioeconomic
background and deprived region has not achieved the target of 20%. Therefore I argue that
neoliberalism has yet to overcome the issue of inclusivity. Finally, this study also reflects the
needs to bridge policy-practice gap in implementing inclusive access to higher education
Keywords: higher education; neoliberalism; right to higher education; inclusivity

4
Table of Content

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 3

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... 7

List of Figure ............................................................................................................................ 8

Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter One: Introduction

Neoliberalism and Higher Education in Indonesia ...................................................... 11

Autonomy in Indonesian Higher Education ................................................................ 15
Research and Aim ....................................................................................................... 18
Structure ..................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Neoliberalism.............................................................................................................. 21
Right to Higher Education ........................................................................................... 24
Inclusive Education (IE) ............................................................................................... 27

Chapter Three: Findings and Discussion

Deregulation and Autonomy of PTN BH ..................................................................... 31

Government Expenditure in Indonesian Higher Education ............................. 34
Governance and Accountability of PTN BH ................................................................ 36
Decision Making in PTN BH ............................................................................. 39
Accountability of PTN BH ................................................................................ 39
Fair Access to HE in Indonesian Policy-text ............................................................... 40
HEIs Accreditation and Quality Assurance ................................................................ 41
National Student Admission of Public HE ................................................................... 43
Student Scholarship ................................................................................................... 52
Student Tuition Fees .................................................................................................. 53
Universitas Indonesia ................................................................................................ 68
Universitas Gunadarma ............................................................................................. 70

5
 Inclusivity: Meaning and Practice .............................................................................. 64

Chapter Four: Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 73

Bibliography............................................................................................................................ 75

6
List of Tables

Table 1: Number of Higher Education Institution in Indonesia 2017 .......................... 13

Table 2: Indonesian Regional Domestic Product (RDP) per Island 2016… .................... 14

Table 3: Detail of Organization Occupied by Interviewees.......................................... 33

Table 4: Timeline of Selected Educational Reform Policy in Indonesia 1999-2014 ..... 36

Table 5: Indonesia’s Government Expenditure in Higher Education 2008-2015 ..........40

Table 6: Characteristics of Different Financial Management of Indonesian HEIs ......... 41

Table 7: Accreditation of HEIs and Study Programs in Indonesia 2017 ........................ 46

Table 8: Undergraduate Student Admission Stream in Public University 2017............ 47

Table 9: Jalur Mandiri in Undergraduate Student Admission of PTNBH University .....50

Table 10: UKT of Math and Science’s Course in Four Different PTN BH (IDR) ................ 54

Table 11: Admission Streams of Educational Programs in Universitas Indonesia .......... 56

Table 12: Percentage of Student with BOP-B in Universitas Indonesia 2016 ................. 59

Table 13: Universitas Indonesia Scholarship Report in 2016 ........................................... 62

7
List of Figure

Figure 1. Model ‘Input-Process-Output’ Based on Kyrizaopoulou & Weber (2009) …… 29

Figure 2. Indonesian Qualification Framework (IQF) ..................................................... 45

Figure 3. Total Educational Cost of Medical and Science in UI without BOP-B .............. 60

Figure 4. Educational Cost Medical Science 10 Semester/student in UI with BOP-B ..... 60

8
Abbreviations

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

DGHE Directorate General of Higher Education

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GER Gross Enrollment Ratio

HEIs Higher Education Institutions

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

IE Inclusive Education

IMF International Monetary Fund

MDGs Millenium Development Goals

MoRTHE Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

QA Quality Assurance

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Right

UI University of Indonesia

UN United Nations

UNGEI United Nations Girls Education Iniciatives

UG University of Gunadarma

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WB World Bank

9
Chapter One: Introduction

Neoliberalism has emerged as one of the most widespread political agendas in the 21st
century. Biebricher (2015) explains that neoliberalism is “an economic imperialism that aim
to subject all spehers of society to the logic of the markets”. The market principles seem to
prompt the economics and politics in most of countries worldwide (Giroux, 2009), also
relatable in all dimensions of life (Brown W, 2003). The centre idea of Neoliberalism is an
institutional framework of deregulation, privatization, commercialisation, free trade and free
market (Harvey, 2005). Robbins (2005) noted some of the key principles that underpinned
neoliberalism. These included: (1) sustained economic growth is the key to human progress;
(2) non-interference of the government is the most efficient and optimal way in allocating
resources; (3) privatisation removes the public sector’s innefficiency. Neoliberalism dictates
a massive disinvestment in government spending. This is especially true in public services and
social programmes such as healthcare, education, transportation, infrastructure, including
the provision of clean water and sanitation are now subject to market regulation. It gets worse
with the involvement of neoliberalism predatory such as WTO (GATS) and IMF that impose
their pre-requisite to the member-state. The nature of the government has shifted, from
being responsible for a range of social needs into the adductions of those responsibilities to
the market or private philanthropy agency (Bluestone & Harrison in Giroux, 2009).

Everything under neoliberalism’s scenario is either for sale or is taken over for profit purposes.
The profit orientation revolves around the notion of competitiveness, where the competition
becomes a tool to acquire the maximum quality of goods and services. Davies (2014) argues
for profit oriented competiton only generates "winner" and "loser”. This ambition increases
the disparity between the social classes, broadening the gap between the rich and the poor
(Hill & Kumar, 2009). Neoliberalism gives privilege to an individual authority over larger social
needs (Arendt in Giroux, 2009), which creates an endless battle between personal gain and
common benefits.

In higher education, neoliberal tendency has emerged as the new reform agenda that
contrasts to the central planning. In other words, it promotes the creation of legally
autonomous Higher Education Institution (HEIs). This means that HEIs should be granted
greater autonomy through the deregulation of state bureaucracy, while the government
simultaneously loses its power. According to Brown R. (2011), the institution has the freedom

10
“to specify the product and to produce and deploy the resources to deliver it”. Similarly,
Santiago et.al. (2017) notes that neoliberalism regards the HEI as the corporation of
knowledge production that sells services. HEIs are keen to be profitable in a system whereby
knowledge and research are commercialised as commodities, while teachers and staffs are
labour that work for the education enterprise.

Neoliberalism and Higher Education in Indonesia

Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world, with 257,563,815 individuals living
in the state across 17.458 islands with five main islands (World Bank, 2015). With
approximately 60 million students and 4 million teachers in over 340.000 educational
institutions, makes Indonesia the fourth…… largest education system in the world (OECD,
2015). Indonesia’s education system is divided into two dimensions of track and level. Track
consists of formal, non-formal and informal education. Meanwhile, level consists of primary,
secondary and higher education. This comprises 6 years of primary education, 3 years of
junior-high, and 3 years of senior-high. Senior secondary education has two types: Senior
Secondary School (which offers more academic oriented programs) and Vocational School
(which offers skills for the graduates to directly enter the labour market).

Based on the 1945 national constitution, the Indonesian government is obligated to allocate
as much as 20% of government spending (GDP) to the education sector. Yet, the
implementation of the mentioned decree is much more dynamic and is often based on the
political settlement in each ruling administration (Rosser, 2016).1 The country has applied the
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of IMF and World Bank, which required the
government to cease the state expenses (in the social welfare programme, including
education) to obtain the loan. The government’s Higher Education spending in 2015 (15.8%)
was two times lower than the figure that the country spent in 1995 (33.92%).

For many years, the country was ruled by an authoritarian government whose visions were
based on neoliberal principles. It was the New Order Regime that began in 1965. The leader,
former president Soeharto, led the country to adopt an open market mechanism and free
trade. Torres (2011) claims that “neoliberal government promotes open market, global free

1
His study (2016) examines in the contest between set of actors, interest, political agendas in Indonesia’s
policy making shaped and pattern neoliberal higher education reform since 1990s.

11
trade, the deduction of public sector, decease the government intervention in economy and
the deregulation of markets”. Soeharto even hired a team of economic technocrats called
‘Berkeley Mafia’2 to be his chief economic advisors during the regime (Rosser, 2016).

Soeharto’s regime was dominated by bureaucratic and military’s predatory who invested
their interest in domestic and foreign capital (Rosser, 2016). Public services’ production and
delivery such as telecommunications, transportations, health care and education were shared
with private companies. In early 1990, the Minister of MoEC announced a new approach to
the education system called “link and match” to boost a rapid economic growth. He explained
each of the terms as follows: ‘link’ means that education should be comply with the market
demands, and ‘match’ means the graduates should fulfil the demand of the users in terms of
quantity and quality (Suardi, 2012).

The political instability and economic crisis in 1998 put Indonesia into a severe state of
needing professionals and skilled workers to engineer the industry and economic
revitalisation. Labour market sought after higher qualification, knowledge comprehension
and skills. This had stimulated the demand for more Higher Education provisions and
graduates. HEIs started to multiply in their number, transforming the elitist system into a
substantial one. In excess of 2000 private institutions were founded. The market-driven
system not only changes the funding stream of the public sector but also encourages and
facilitates the entry of alternative providers (McGettingan, 2013). In 2010, the government
introduced MP3EI, which stands for Masterplan Percepatan dan Perluasan Pembangunan
Ekonomi Indonesia. It contained strategies to enhance economic growth through producing
skills and professionals to work in industries and manufacturers. The MP3EI enabled the
vocational-education expansion in particular, and the HEI in general. In 2010, DGHE reported
the expansion trend in Higher Education sector had resulted in more than 5.2 million students
being enrolled in 3,100 HEIs across the country. This was almost double the 2.9 million
students across 1944 HEIs in 2002 (National Education Department, 2002).

There are six types of HEIs in Indonesia that are provided by either the public or private
sectors, which are: (1) Universities/ Universitas, (2) Colleges/Sekolah Tinggi, (3) Institutes/

2
The leading members included Widjojo Nitisastro, Radius Prawiro, Ali Wardhana, Sumarlin, Emil Salim.
Berkeley Mafia was known as neoliberals

12
Institut, (4) Polytechnics/ Politeknik, (5) Academies/ Akademi, (6) Community Academies/
Akademi Komunitas. The following table illustrates Indonesian HEIs in 2017, based on the
respective category:
Table 1
Number of Higher Education Institution in Indonesia in 2017

Public Private Total

Under the provision of DGHE 122 3,124 3,246

(PT)

Under the provision of Ministry 95 1,014 1,014

of Religious Affairs (PTA)

Under the provision of other 180 0 180

ministries and state body (PTK)

Total 397 4,138 4,535

Source: Indonesian Higher Education Database (Forlapdikti)

As shown above, the private institution (4,138) outnumbers the public institution (397): from
4,516 institutions, only 8.7% are public institutions. Unfortunately, only 1.131 Public-Private
HEIs had acquired accreditation of institution from BAN-PT (National Accreditation Board for
Higher Education). BAN PT (in ACDP, 2017) has reported that out of 4,516 only 4% accredited
A, 31% accredited B and 65% accredited C. The rest of 3,404 HEIs have not obtain
accreditation. The issue of deprived quality of HEIs will likely to affect the students and
graduates.

Furthermore, regardless of the increasing number of HEIs, according to the Directorate

General of Higher Education (DGHE) in 2013, statistics show significant inequality in terms of
the distribution of institutions among regions. The poorer areas have fewer higher education
institutions in comparison to the developed ones. Most of the top ranks in the Indonesian
Higher Education Ranking League are located on the main island of Jawa (Webometrics,
2017).

13
 Table 2
Indonesian Regional Domestic Product (RDP) per Island

Island / Region 2014 2015 2016

1 Sumatera 23,02 22,18 22,02

2 Jawa 57,39 58,34 57,88

3 Bali & Nusa Tenggara 2,87 3,07 3,11

4 Kalimantan 8,77 8,15 8,27

5 Sulawesi 5,64 5,91 6,07

6 Maluku & Papua 2.31 2,36 2,65

Total 100,00 100,00 100.00

Source: Indonesian National Statistics Bureau (BPS) 2016

Badan Pusat Statistik or Indonesian National Statistic has reported a severe geographical
disparity among different islands. As illustrated in Table 2, Regional Domestic Product (RDP)
or the size of economy produced by the main island of Jawa is twenty-five times higher than
Maluku and Papua. It depicts the capacity of each respective region to establish favourable
environment (for instance, facility and security) for students to adopt and HEIs to operate.
Consequently, there are more quality HEIs in higher income region

According to the Ministry of Education and Culture (2015), the largest number of HEIs are
located in the Jawa Barat/West Jawa region (with 381 HEIs), followed by the city of Jakarta
(301 HEIs), the region of Jawa Timur/East Jawa (292 HEIs), the region of Jawa Tengah/Central
Jawa (248HEIs), the region of Sumatera Utara/North Sumatera (210 HEIs), the region of
Sulawesi Selatan/South Sulawesi (173 HEIs), the city of Jogjakarta (121 HEIs), and the region
o\f Sumatera Selatan/South Sumatera (104 HEIs). The top 5 referenced are urban city/regions
which are mainly located in Jawa. Additionally, the bottom 5 are Sulawesi Barat/West
Sulawesi (13 HEIs), Maluku Utara/North Maluku (12 HEIs), Bangka Belitung (10 HEIs),
Gorontalo (9 HEIs), Kalimantan Utara/North Kalimantan (6 HEIs). They are all located in the
border, disadvantaged and remote areas.

14
There are also significant differences concerning higher education participations rates or GER
among Indonesian regions. Huge cities like Jakarta and Yogyakarta account for 75% of the
GER, while some of the most deprived cities - like West Kalimantan, West Papua, Belitung,
Riau, West Sulawesi and others - only obtain 10% of the GER. Another notable aspect is that
out of 20%, only 7.5% of the students from the low-middle income background enrolled in
Higher Education (Indonesian National Survey, 2015). This apparently illustrates the
significant gap between poor and rich students that are enrolled in university. According to
Neoliberalism discourse, it is an “unavoidable fate” for deprived cities to have a reduced
quality of HEIs and teachers (Bauman, 2006). A good quality of HEIs are driven by the incentive
(in this respect is profit or any other benefit), they hire best teachers, build high quality of
facility and infrastructure and so forth. Tooley (in McCowan, 2009) suggests that the profit
motive is interinsically beneficial for education. It is interchanged with quality of teachers,
good facilities, expansion of access, and accountability. Therefore, under the concept of
neoliberalism, institutions should be granted full autonomy in looking for the incentive.

Autonomy in Indonesian Higher Education

In Indonesian Higher Education, the word autonomy firstly appeared in the national policy on
the decree No. 2/1989 article 22 (2). This stated that “HEIs has autonomy to manage their
own institution as the centre of higher education provisions and scientific research”. However,
in practice, it was mostly ignored by the New Order government3. Public HEI is a formal unit
within the state bureaucracy, staffs were all civil servants. Unlike today where the
provost/rektor and other leaders at the institution were elected through open competitive
process, back then (1967-1998) they were appointed by the government among the existing
academic staffs. During the new order regime, opening or closing courses and degree
programmes required the MoEC’s direct approval. It is all top-down or centralised
management and decision making.

Today, in contrast, both legally autonomous public and private HEIs acquire government
funding from the platform of competitive grants (DGHE, 2016). Brojonegoro (2012) notes that
HEIs in the new order regime received “pre allocated line by line budget” instead of block

3
New Order (Orde Baru) is a term that refer to 31 years administration of authoritarian president Soeharto in
Indonesia. The regime is allegedly known for the practice of corruption, collusion and nepotism.

15
grants. Public universities were subsidised by the state budget, yet the institution was given
zero chance of allocating the funding based on their own judgement. Every expenses should
be planned and purposed one year ahead and be approved by the minister. Private
universities were operated and managed by the foundation/Yayasan, along with a very
minimum subsidy of 6% from the Indonesian government. It was also closely monitored by
the MoEC through KOPERTIS or Regional Coordinator for Private Higher Education.

In academic works, Human Right Watch (1998) reported that in Soeharto’s regime book
censorhip was institutionalised. The curriculum that was taught in schools or universities was
dictated by the central government of MoEC, especially regarding the subject of history
(Suryakusuma, 2008).4 By law, indonesians could be imprisoned for expressing dissenting
opinions or being caught doing subversive action.5 Research, debate and any other types of
freedom of expression were severely controlled. Adnan Buyung Nasution, a human right
activist and legal historian, stated that “the worst crime in Soeharto’s regime is that he has
made Indonesians afraid to think, afraid to express themselves”. The education system,
including Higher Education, was used as a means of promoting ‘political obedience’, glorifying
nationalism and the state ideology of Pancasila (Nugroho, 2005). Hegemony of the capitalist
ruler is reproduced in universities through manufactured consent or legitimacy/force
(Gramsci, 1971)

Notable changes in the Indonesian Education Governance were not made until the financial
crisis afflicted the country in 1997-1998 and the end of Soeharto’s regime. The national
authority over primary and secondary education were decentralised to the local government
of provincial and districts (bottom-up). Welch (2007) argues that the country was attempting
to implement decentralisation in education as a matter of urgency in response to the rising
demands for regional autonomy of politics, administration and fiscal control. In the level of
Higher Education, in contrast, decentralisation of authority yields to the HEIs respectively. In
1999, the government released a pilot study relating to four prominent public universities
which had been granted the status of BHMN (Badan Hukum Milik Negara). They were

4
In Soeharto’s regime, the incidents like ‘Madiun Revolt in 1948’ and ‘30th September Movement in 1965’
were written in anti-communist interpretation. It was to justify the imprisonment and mass killing did by
Soeharto’s government after the alighting of first president Soekarno.
5
In most of the case, activists or those who criticized Soeharto’s regime were kidnapped and killed. State
servants were forced to give their voting for Golongan Karya’s Party every national/regional election (Human
Right Watch, 1998)

16
UI/Universitas Indonesia, ITB/Institut Teknologi Bandung, UGM/Universitas Gadjah Mada,
IPB/Institut Pertanian Bogor, ITS/Institut Teknologi Surabaya (Decree No 61/1999). The
concept of autonomy in the mentioned institutions prevailed in four dimensions: (1)
autonomy to appoint the senior managers (held an electoral process to appoint
Provost/Rektor and other leaders); (2) decide its own financial-management to get its own
funding; (3) authority to open, close and develop subject, study programs and degrees; (4)
hire outsourcing teachers and staffs; (5) new accountability (DGHE, 1999)

After the pilot study, the government decided to introduce a new higher education strategy
which was called ‘Higher Education Long Term’s Strategy 2003-2010’. The policy was based
on the principles of Nation’s Competitiveness, Decentralisation and Autonomy, and Improving
Internal management. Subsequently, in 2008, the government announced the decree No
9/2009 on BHP stands for Badan Hukum Pendidikan/Educational Legal Institution. This stated
that all levels of education should be operated under the full autonomy of the
institution/school. Yayasan was obliged to surrender control over their private HEIs. More
public HEIs were encouraged to obtain the status of legally autonomous institution (BHP).
Accordingly, a massive resistance from student organisation, education activist and yayasan
occurred in many areas of the country. They shared the following concerns: the government
wanted to escape from their obligation to fund education; HEIs would substantially increase
the tuition fees; with the high cost, education would not be affordable for all and would only
result in the inequality worsening (Tilaar, 2012). Neoliberalism completely alter the nature of
public institution to be a legitimate enterprise with a very minimum protection from the
government against risk and bankruptcy (Indonesian Constitutional Court, 2009). Due to the
strong resentment at that time, the law regarding BHP was rejected.

The government introduced the decree No 12/2012 about Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Berbadan
Hukum (PTN-BH) or Legally Autonomous Public University later in 2012. The law actually re-
emphasised the similar extent of autonomy that was previously negotiated in BHMN and BHP,
unless it is claimed to accommodate some of the previous objection against BHP. Like BHP,
the decree of PTN-BH also advocates the market interest, especially with the financial
freedom. However, unlike the BHP, due to the weak rejection, the decree of PTN-BH was
passed and adopted. Those decrees over the course of years, signifying neoliberalism
principle and the march of market in Indonesian Higher Education.

17
Albeit the authority of managing Higher Education is now decentralised to each institution.
Nonetheless, at the national level, there are different think tank groups that affect the policy
making within Higher Education. On one hand, the main responsibility of managing higher
education comes under the stewardship of the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher
Education (MoRTH)6, in particular, the Directorate General for Higher Education (DGHE).

On the other hand, some other ministries and agencies also have a significant role. These
include but are not limited to the Ministry of Finance (Kementerian Keuangan) and State Audit
Agency (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Negara), responsible for regulating financial
management, assessing, and auditing grants/subsidy and assets that are owned by the public
Higher Education Institution; Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform
(Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi) and State Civil
Service Agency (Badan Kepegawaian Negara), the bodies responsible for ensuring the proper
conditions of civil servants employment (teachers and staffs hired in universities); Ministry of
Religious Affairs (Kementerian Agama), responsible for funding the State Islamic Universities,
and others. Additionally, these relevant actors usually have their own HEIs. For instance, the
Ministry of Religious Affairs (Islamic Education Institutions), the Ministry of Finance (State
College of Accountancy), the Indonesian National Police (National Police Academy), and the
Indonesian National Armed Forces (Indonesian Military Academy). The variety of influential
actors in national decision making add more flavour to the complexity of Higher Education
system in Indonesia.

Research and Aim

Purwadi and Muljoatmodjon (in Welch, 2007) observe that, due to the context, managing
Higher Education in Indonesia is exceptionally challenging. The spatial disparity among
regions, the socio-economic background of students, the multiple levels of higher education
management, the market-driven system, quality of HEIs and the participation rates and
availability of HEI facility should all be considered when attempting to achieve inclusive higher
education in Indonesia

6
The Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (MoRTH) was established not until the
newly elected president Joko Widodo was appointed in October 2014. In the previous administrations, DGHE
was under the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC), which is now managing primary and secondary
education.

18
The idea that education should be inclusive seems to have an overall consensus within the
international community (Barret, 2014). The establishment of Education for All (EFA),
Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) goal 2, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) goal 4
and many other relevant movements are designed to promote the provision of inclusive
education. The World Declaration on Education for All (2000) defines equity in education as a
service that “provides the best opportunities for all students, in order to achieve their
maximum potential and act to address circumstance which restrict educational achievement”.
There are different ways in defining inclusivity in education. UNGEI (2010) define inclusion as
an aspect that “responds towards diversity of needs among all learners, through increasing
participation in learning, cultures, and communities, and reducing exclusion from and within
education”. In which the conception of inclusivity is not only about equitable education for all
but also cater the different needs of learners to prevent them from marginalisation and
exclussion from a high quality of education. UNESCO (2008) notes that inclusive education
system places its attention on “equity and access to high quality education for all, while
respecting diversity”.1 Berlach & Chambers describe inclusive education as the matter of
opportunities availability and admission of learners with special needs or disadvantaged
backgrounds.

In the context of Indonesia, although the higher education system is now transformed to be
more independent and decentralised, the government still set the basic principle in
accordance with the national constitution, article 31 of Indonesian Constitution 1945. This
stated that “every citizen has the right to education”. In the decree of National Education
20/2003, article 5 clause 1 “every citizens deserves the right to quality education”; clause 2
“citizens with disability (phisically, emotionally, mentally, intelectually) deserves special
education”; clause 3 “citizens who live in the disadvantaged and remoted area deserves
special education”; clause 5 “every citizen has the right to a long-life learning”. By the
establishment of PTN BH (12/2012), the Indonesian government created a legal framework
to grant public HEI autonomy in arranging their own needs and fulfilment (academic; financial;
human resources). Under PTN BH, universities are allowed to expand their income, including
creating the special passage or jalur khusus as an alternate stream of student admission,
offered to those who can pay the higher price. They are otherwise permitted to gain profit by
creating for-profit enterprise (hotel, corporation, etc). Nevertheles, article 74(1)

19
of PTN BH mentioned that all Public HEIs are obliged to address the issue of disparity in access
to higher education. It said that “[…] at least 20% of the total incoming students are those
who have high academic potentials but economically incapable of affording the tuition”. HEIs
are expected to allocate the quota for disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, according to
McGettingan (2013) the market driven. Therefore, for all these reasons, I am motivated to
conduct this study.

This research simply aims to discover whether neoliberalism is aimed at addressing or has
been exacerbating the problems with inclusive higher education in Indonesia. In order to do
so, I examine how the idea of inclusivity is constructed and practiced by HEIs in Indonesia, and
what their incentives are in doing so. I consider whether the transformation of higher
education governance –from centralised to decentralise- affects inclusivity in Indonesian HEI.
Thus, I have designed two research questions:

1. Under the present governance underpinned by neoliberal tendencies in higher education,

how do public and private universities in Indonesia perceive and practice inclusivity?
2. What kind of incentives drives their practices?

The research is conducted through a qualitative approach of case studies at two universities
(one a prime public university and one a prime private university). I am using the
triangulations method of data collection, combining semi-structured interviews,
documentary analysis and literature review. I analyse some relevant documents and text
produced by the Indonesian government from 2008-2017 in relation to granting wider
autonomy for HEIs. Subsequently, I interviewed some purposive Interviewees from the
MoRTHE and from both universities to acquire a deeper understanding regarding the topic.

Structure

Therefore, this dissertation is organised into six chapters. Chapter one is the introduction.
This chapter highlights the context of higher education in Indonesia, what are the problems
and complexities in governing over 4.516 higher education Institutions across the country,
types and tracks. I provide the trajectories of the autonomy conception in Indonesian Higher
Education, and conclude the chapter with my research purpose, questions and an outline of
the structure of the study. Chapter two presents the theoretical and conceptual framework
of Neoliberalism, Right to higher education and Inclusive Education (IE) in the literature.

20
Chapter three presents the most interesting findings and facts that I have discovered around
the discourse and practice of neoliberalism and inclusivity in Indonesian higher education,
followed by the discussion. Finally, in chapter four, I draw the conclusion from the study and
outline the recommendations that the Indonesian government should consider in order to
potentially improve higher education in Indonesia

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

This chapter presents the theories that I used to explain and develop a cohesive interpretation
in my research (Vincent & Mertz, 2011; Slverman, 2013). Moreover, it discusses how the
theory is related to the existing literature. The theoretical framework is aimed at guiding the
researcher in both collecting and analysing the data, as well as clarifying arguments and
compiling the work. While literature review helps to look at the previous studies that have
been found around the topic and positioning the contribution of my research (Rudestam and
Newton in Silerman, 2014). Therefore, I divided the chapter into the three following sections:
(1) Neoliberalism, to grasp the conceptual understanding around the free market ideological
doctrine and practices of autonomy in education governance; (2) Right to Education, which
addresses the global discourse of right to education; (3) Inclusive Education, which presents
the conception and debate surrounding education inclusivity.

Neoliberalism

Since the 1970s, the notion and practice of Neoliberalism has been dominating and shaping
the global political economy. It started from the West and spread across the other side of the
world after the Cold War. Regarding the concept, Larner (2009) notes the term of
Neoliberalism had first appeared in social science literature to describe a policy deployed by
the nation state in the 1980s and 1980s. During that time, government and academia were
involved in a debate of relative roles of state versus market in ensuring social well-being and
economic growth.

Generally, Canteno and Cohen (2012) argue that that neoliberalism desires the shifting of
‘economic power and control' from the government to the market. It is against the welfare
state typical policies such as but not limited to the provision of public goods and services,
redistribution of taxation, subsidy and others. Suggesting that such activities are non-

21
economic and are therefore irrelevant, meanwhile, the market regulation is seen as a
universal principle (Gwartney et al., 2010). David Harvey (2005) wrote an extensive piece on
Neoliberalism, called ‘A brief history of Neoliberalism’, in which he argues that human well-
being can be best achieved by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedom and skills within
a framework of free market and free trade. Harvey also explains that state ‘by force if need
be’ has to ensure the proper function of the market and secure the private property rights.

Neoliberalism is an ideology that is rooted from the classical liberalism, which is stipulated by
early theorists,such as Adam Smith, John Locke and David Ricardo, and the 20th-century
theorists of Milton Friedman and Von Hayek (Harvey, 2005). Nevertheless, the current
dominant form of Neoliberalism is different from the classical one. Hayek (Hill & Kumar, 2009)
highlights the difference between classical liberalism (laissez-faire) and today’s neoliberalism;
the former wanted a complete exclusion of the state and letting private enterprises be
entirely free to make a profit without being hindered by legislation (tax, labour minimum
wage, etc.). Meanwhile, Neoliberalism demands that the role of the state should promote its
interest through Deregulation of the economy; Liberalisation of trade; and Privatisation of
state assets (Steger & Roy, 2010). Government intervention is needed especially in the sector
of education and training, where labour skills and ideology are fostered (Hill D. , 2005: &
Kumar, 2009: Pp 3).

Over the last few decades, the concept of Neoliberalism in academic literature has expanded
from political philosophy to a policy programme of ‘minimal state intervention’. The
intellectual tools to analyse its values and effects are also diverse (Larner, 2009: Pp. 375).
Lamer (2009) identifies the analysis of policy framework as the most common approach to
neoliberalism by highlighting the provision of market to the formerly public goods and
services:

“[…] Researcher attribute the shift of political agenda to capture the key institution,
political actor and political ideology which rests on five values o individual, freedom of
choice, market security, lasses fair, and limited role of the state."

The discourse of Neoliberalism depends on the tool of theoretical framework that is used. As
Larner (2009) explains that Marxists and Neo-Marxists will view the policy changes under
neoliberalism as shifts in the nature of capitalism, it sustains the accumulation of capital and

22
indulges the dominant class by restoring their income. Gramscians sees neoliberalism as a
hegemonic discourse about the world that makes sense to people in a range of different social
positions and control the consciousness of people (Sewpaul, 2015), while Neo-Foucaldian
argues that less government does not always follow with the less governance. Although the
neoliberalism problematised the state, yet, it involves a governance which encourages and
protect both individual choice and institution in practising the norm of the market (Larner,
2009: Pp, 376).

Rosser (2016) notes that the principle of neoliberalism in higher education entails national
legislative changes to aim at: (1) enhancing the managerial, financial and academic autonomy
of HEIs (e.g devolving the state responsibility in managing the institution; giving HEIs
autonomy to control resources and expand their income; the limited involvement of state in
the appointment of the university’s board); (2) encouraging competition between HEIs (e.g
promoting greater involvement of the private sector, in some cases allowing the
establishment of foreign university’s branch campuses, offering competitive grants as a
platform to allocate public funds); (3) framing the accountability of HEIs in using public funds
(e.g the creation of accreditation body to assess both institutions and their programmes; the
requirement of external public audit is to assess financial accountability). Harvey (2005) in the
chapter of The Neoliberal States describes "privatisation and deregulation combined with
competition are claimed to improve the quality”. Nevertheless, Commercialization weaken
the excellence academic standards, reliability, and harm the reputation of the institution (Bok
D. , 2003), market and consumer driven system are not able to produce opportunities for
universal access, leadership training and the redress of social inequalities.

Neoliberalism in education suggests the adoption of Corporate Management Model (Susanti,

2011). The new structure of educational institutions which employ the market mechanism
can increase the efficiency of HEIs by reducing state monopoly, making it more accountable
and less bureaucratic (Bok, 2003; Geiger in McCowan, 2009). Moreover, Tooley (2000) claims
that “quality control is best ensured by market forces”, and that profitable educational
institution will only provide high-quality services in order to stimulate high demand. McCowan
(2009) also notes there are some studies that indicate that profit-making institutions allows
high levels of access to higher education “for profit institution in some middle-income
countries have brought an increasing enrollment in higher education, in the US

23
it has provided the opportunity offered to those who have difficulties in attending traditional
based-campus” (Sinclair, 2003: Chipman, 2002: Steier, 2003). Tooley (1999) reminds that the
expansion of HEIs is likely to happen when they have an incentive to do so (in the form of
profit or other things). However, according to Giroux (2009), the adaptation of a corporate
model into HEIs consequently reduces the social relations between students and HEIs into a
supplier and consumers: parents and students as consumers, faculty as an entrepreneur, and
college president as the chief executive officer and education as a tool of training. Whitty et
al. (1998) examined the effect of quasi-market into education system as exacerbating the
existing inequalities. Research is assessed for its ability to generate profits rather than
knowledge reproductions, and governance has been handed over to a corporate managerial
model, un-commodified services are curtailed (Giroux, 2014)

Higher education institutions are under enormous pressure to change, the practice of
neoliberalism, growing political pluralism and rising demand for higher education has
overwhelmed the government's capacity to pay for higher education's provision. Rosser
(2016) wrote an extensive analysis on Neoliberalism and the politics of higher education in
Indonesia throughout different government administrations. Using the theoretical framework
of political settlement (North, 1990), he claims that the higher education reform in the
country has been hindered by strong opposition from “predatory” quarters which he refers
to as involving bureaucrats, military officials and popular forces (such as university students,
peasants, NGO activist, workers), except when it comes to academic freedom "both, popular
forces support the reform and predatory ones offer little resistance”. However, in his study,
he did not expose the current situation after the establishment of Decree no 12/2012, where
all public universities, under certain requirements, can gain autonomy in managing their own
academic, financial and human resources, and it has been greater than before. Higher
education institutions have a solid bargain to determine their pathways. Therefore, in my
research I look at how this current state of neoliberalism after the Decree no 12/2012.

Right to Higher Education

Education is inevitably necessary, and it is firmly manifested in international agreement.

According to Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR), Article 26(1) 1948 conveyed:

24
 “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
and fundamental stages. Primary education shall be compulsory, technical and
professional should be made available, and higher education shall be accessible to all
on the basis of merit”.

In meritocracy setting, nothing like colour of one's skin and nature of one's religion does
matter, but one's individual qualification (Tierney, Merit and Affirmative Action in Education,
2007). Although Cestau (2017) argues that disadvantaged students (the minority, those with
a disability and the poor) are underrepresented in programme selections that based on merit
admission. Besides the UDHR, two more existing documents and international law have been
produced to promote right to education, including, but not limited to, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR). ICESCR Article 13(1) states:

"State shall recognize the right of everyone to education […] education shall be directed
to the fulfillment of human personality, dignity, respect for freedoms and human rights
[…] education shall enable people to actively engaged in a free society, tolerant, and
understanding of all race, ethnicity, religious group and nations"

Meanwhile, the CRC’s Article 28(1) stipulates "State recognise the right of children to
education, and achieve this right progressively based on equal opportunity". This is
particularly through achieving the following distinct features: (1) Free and compulsory
primary education for all; (2) The development of different secondary education (general and
vocational) and offering financial assistance if needed; (3) Higher education accessible to all
on the basis of capacity; (4) Availability and accessibility of education and vocational
information and guidance; (5) Regular attendance and reduction of drop-out rates. Amartya
Sen in (McCowan, 2012) claims that universal rights are moral rights rather than legal rights.
The attribution to human right comes with the recognition that human being have basic needs
that equal to moral demand (Pogge T. , 2002)

McCowan (2012) explains that the debate surrounding ‘right to education’ lies beneath the
question "whether access to Education is a right or privilege?". On the one hand, in the
context of developing countries, where a large proportion of people are systematically
excluded from quality education (say because of geographical disparity or socio-economic

25
background), it is favourable to look at education as a right. On the other hand, under the
notion of shared-cost, study at the university is indeed expensive, when it is paid from the
general taxation, but only benefits few people, meaning it is more of a private advantage than
a public advantage. In the latter depiction, education is a privilege for those people. Haydon
(1977) categorised three possible grounds of right to education, (1) Socialization, acquiring
essential capacity in order to function in society and live along with others; (2) Optional
Education, developing cognitive skills and intellectual capacity; (3) Autonomy, is the mixture
of the first and the latter. Based on this view, we have a right as an autonomous being; yet,
we still need help from other peers to achieve desired conditions. The problem is that,
although the right to higher education seems to be accessible, it is not generally available
(Beiter, 2006).

There is a rich complexity in understanding the right to higher education. Unterhalter and
Brighouse (2007) argue for a range of benefits from attending higher education institutions:
Intrinsic (knowledge), Instrumental (network, health, others), and position (one's opportunity
relative to others in the community). Additionally, McMahon (Oketch, 2016) elaborates the
positive externalities of Higher Education for All as “[…] Higher Education benefits can also be
captured by those who have not attended Higher Education by contributing back in the form
of economic development". Higher education resonates with the special level of ‘personal
development’ (Barnett, 1999). Although some argue that higher education and personal
development might be mutually exclusive, individual development does not necessarily have
something to do with the investment in higher education; it might be accounted from the
range of other educational options (informal or non-formal)

Lawson (2012) suggests another way of asserting Higher Education for All by looking at it from
the demand side "Although Higher Education is available to people, yet, not everyone chooses
to opt in, many people do not recognise nor admit the benefit of attending higher education
in their life”. He continues to argue that in some cases, the provision of an equal right to
education does not necessarily reassure that the right would be exercised equally. Yet, this
individual’s choices in educational option should have not justified the restriction of right to
access higher education. Instead, sstudent should be helped if they opt to return to higher
education at any age of their life (long-life learning), and should be supported in preparing to
do.

26
The matter of access to higher education has been reduced to education fees. On the one
hand, higher education is perceived as the private goods which lead to favourable rate of
return in the form of productivity and higher salary (Becker, 1993; Hanushek, 2007). On the
other hand, those who in favour of free higher education believes that higher education is
public good, where the rate of return accordingly will benefit the whole community. Recalling
the debate, McCowan (2013) argues that “Higher education must be considered as a right, in
a way that it should be available for all, yet at the same time it is a privilege that need to be
cherish as a precious opportunity one can get to get advantage then extend it for the benefit
of the society”. Yet, he suggests that higher education should not be in the stage of being
compulsory, as the decision to take an advantage from higher education should be in
accordance with each individual’s choice, meaning access should be made available at the
very first place. Therefore, there should be a universal entitlement of Higher Education for All
as the primary education (McCowan, 2012: Pp 111).

The idea of taking higher education as a right is certainly correlated with the availability of
resources, such as the attempt to create more and more HEIs. However, the provision of the
right to education is not only depicted by the massification of universities, but it also revolves
around the access to quality teaching and learning, which leads us to the third concept of
inclusive education.

Inclusive Education (IE)

It is widely known that the terms of “inclusion” and “inclusive education” have been on a
journey of transformation, from being mainly attached to the educational placement of
students with disabilities or special needs to a wider scope of students who may suffer from
exclusion and marginalisation. In 1990, the World Declaration on Education for All established
the vision of “universalizing access to education for any age children, youth, adults, as well as
promoting the equity”. At the international level, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization has been producing considerable paperwork that addresses the
definition of inclusive education (UNESCO, 1994; 2008; 2009). UNESCO (1998) in the world
conference on higher education emphasised “the protection against any discrimination on the
basis of baskgrounds, entry to university at any point in life and affirmative actions towards
disadvantage groups”. It highlights that an inclusive education system can be achieved if
regular education institutions become more inclusive; it further explains that

27
inclusive education means transforming education institutions to deliver better education to
all children in the community (UNESCO ,2009).

OECD (2007) provides two dimensions of equity: first, fairness (students’ backgrounds and
characteristics should not hinder them from achieveing their educational potential); second,
inclusion (a baseline standard of Education For All). Various efforts have been made to identify
resources to remove barriers for all to access educational opportunities. Meanwhile,
Brighouse and Swift (2006) look at the fundamental of equity as the debate between
“egalitarian” and “sufficientarian”. The former terms describe as equally devided distribution
of opportunities and the latter one promote ‘all have enough’ or minimum standard that all
people should be raised to attain (the inequality beyond that baseline is acceptable).

Ainscow et al. (2006) suggest six ways of perceiving inclusive education: (1) As a concern
towards the student with a disability and special educational needs; (2) As a response to
disciplinary exclusion; (3) Relates to all groups that are vulnerable to exclusions; (4) As an
attempt to Schools for All; (5) Education for All; (6) As an approach to education and
community. There is a difficulty in picturing how inclusion will be executed in practice.
Loreman et al. (2014), in an article called "Measuring Inclusive Education" , argue that
definition of inclusive education can be categorised into two clusters: first, the concept of
education inclusivity based on the key features (Berlach & Chambers, 2011), second, the
concept of education inclusivity as to remove all barriers which excluded and marginalised. In
the first category inclusive education presence as "the absence of bias, prejudice and
inequality". However, Loreman (2014) believes that if it is based on the definition of ‘key
features’, the practice of education inclusivity would be problematic when the educational
context, culture or circumstances are changed. Meanwhile, in the latter category, some
studies have considered inclusion means removing the barriers to participations (Mittler,
2012; Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick, & West, 2011).

Extensive works have been produced in international literature to provide indicators for the
presence of so-called ‘inclusive education’, namely index for inclusive education (Booth &
Ainscow in Loreman et al., 2014). According to Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009), there are
three levels in examining inclusive education: micro, meso and macro, using the ‘input-
process-output’ model, respectively. The following illustration is the input-process-output

28
model developed by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009) that appears in Loreman et al. (2009:
Pp 169)

Figure 1.
Model ‘Input-Process-Output’ based on Kyriazopoulou & Weber (2009)

Everything provided to the system in order to achieve inclusive education, such

as financial resources, policy, staffing, staff training, curriculum, infrastructure,
and support from other disciplines, resource centres, consultant, and others
Inputs

Practices in school jurisdiction, learning environment that transforms the

inputs to work with the students in a way that produces outcomes, including
learning practices, support to empower individual, and others
Process

The attainment from the inputs and process, including satisfaction of the
stakeholders, academic achievement, cost effectiveness, post-school
Outputs employment, and others

Loreman (2014) notes that the contemporary analysis of inclusive education has been
developed based on the recommendation of Miles and Huberman (1994). In the present study
is including aspects or themes that had not been including the earlier international literature.
Loreman (Pp:167) explains that the special circumstances faced by developing countries are
now added to the current literature of measuring inclusive education. On the other hand,
Barrett (2014) suggests that inclusive education is perceived as the social and economic
‘good', in a way that whole schools are modelling a positive approach in addressing diversity
and provide an example of a just and non-discriminatory society. In line with that, Ratcliffe
(2015) claims that, although it may be conceived, higher education is capable of promoting
significant social mobility of disadvantaged groups as long as it results in a greater level of
economic inclusion.

After reviewing considerable literature on inclusivity in education, I would say the discussion
of inclusivity in higher education is more or less deficient, compared to schools levels (primary
and secondary education). Considerable research and literature has been produced to

29
investigate the concept and practice of inclusivity at schools levels (Bulgren, et al., 2006;
Carrington & Robinson, 2006; Forlin & Rose, 2010; Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, & Mcghie-
Richmond, 2010). The practice of inclusivity in primary education, for instance, is second to
nothing since the movement of Free Primary Education become global (UNESCO, 2014). The
values of inclusivity in primary education are empowering, regardless of race, religion, gender,
economic backgrounds, and even intellectual capability. While the higher level we get, the
more factors influencing the idea of inclusivity. The barriers to participation are not entirely
similar. In higher education, things like ‘intellectually unfit' would not be a huge thing in
primary or secondary as it is in higher education education. In the practice of equitable access,
there are affirmative actions (coined by former US President J.F Kennedy) which are described
as a positive discrimination policy (Potts, 2000). Affrimative action is manisfested in different
forms, such as, but not limited to: scholarship, quota of places, incentives based on grades,
and others.

In this research I draw particular attention to the policy concept – an interpretation and
understanding about the concept of inclusivity in education. The interpretation both at
national and university levels is likely to underpin their manner and policy towards students
with disadvantaged backgrounds. The cornerstone of inclusivity that I am investigating is
equitable access to quality of education. Finally, to present the above analysis, I employed the
case study of two prime universities: Universitas Indonesia (Public University) and
Universitas Gunadarma (Private University)

Chapter Three: Findings and Discussion

This chapter presents findings discovered using the triangulation method of data collection:
a semi-structured interview and policy documentary record. The study looked at two different
autonomous universities: Sample 1 Universitas Indonesia (Public) and Sample 2 Universitas
Gunadarma (Private). This chapter is organised into six themes. The first theme is that
deregulation, privatisation and commercialisation in Indonesian HEIs. The second is the idea
of governance and accountability in legally autonomous institutions (PTN BH). The third is the
idea of internationalisation in Indonesian HEIs; the fourth, competitive grants for Indonesian
HEIs; the fifth, students’ tuition fees and crossed subsidies; the sixth, students’ support,
scholarships and non-regular courses.

30
Deregulation and Autonomy of PTN BH

In Indonesian Higher Education, the cornerstone of neoliberalism is manifested through the

autonomy that is granted towards HEIs. It indicates the ability of self-governance, the ability
of an institution to make its own decisions and cater things around its mission, subjects, study
programmes, fees, admissions, sources of income, student and staff numbers, terms and
conditions and so forth (Warnock, 1992).

In recent years, Higher Education in Indonesia has been facing sudden changes. These changes
began with the appointment of four elite universities to be Badan Hukum/corporate
institution status in 1999, imposing on them the need to restructure their financial and
academic sectors. Furthermore, the establishment of the BHP law in 2009 that granted
autonomy to all public universities, both in the academic and non-academic sectors, which
was revoked within one year by the Indonesian Constitutional Court. At this time, the existing
BHP HEIs had to restore their status, and restructure once again. Subsequently, in 2012 the
law of PTN-BH was established. The decree emphasised three main features: the
responsibility of a Minister in Indonesian higher education governance; academic autonomy
(stipulate norms and operational decision of Tridharma)10 and non-academic autonomy
(organisation, finance, students, staffs, facility and infrastructure). The following table
illustrates the changes to national policy regarding higher education from 1999-2014:

31
 Table 4
Timeline of Selected Educational Reform Policy in Indonesia from 1999-2014

UU No 2/1989 National Education Introduced 2 tracks of education: in-school

System education and out-of-school education
PP No 61/1999 Government 1. Granting autonomous status of education
regulation on Public corporate institution (legal entity) to four elites
University as Legal university (Universitas Indonesia, Universitas
Entity Gadjah Mada, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Institut
Teknologi Bandung)
2. Yield the financial and academic autonomy to
the mentioned HEIs
UU No 20/2003 National Education 1. Replace the old decree of 1989
System 2. Decentralisation of Primary and Secondary
education to local government
3. Commitment of allocating 20% of the state
budget allocation (APBN) and region budget
(APBD) spent in education
4. Mandate to create the decree about BHP/Legal
Educational Body on the separate law
UU No 9/2009 The decree on Legal - Introduced the status of Legal Educational Body
Educational Body/ to all schools and HEIs.
BHP - State have no control over the wealth of Public
HEIs (PT-BHP)
- PTN BHP can have loan and debt

10
Tridharma is a term associated with three pillars of higher education: education, research and community
service.

32
 - PTN BHP is obligated to select and receive 20%
of out of total prospective student with high
academic potential yet economically lack
(Article 46/1)
- Student’s tuition should not exceed 1/3 of the
university operational cost
Putusan MK No 11- Indonesian Beside a strong resentment from student, yayasan
14-21- 126- Constitution Court and education activist, the rejection is due to it is
136/PUU- VII/2009 Decision on revoking opening up the marketization education in all levels.
UU No. 9/2009 on
BHP
PP No 17/2010 Government 1. Set a clear platform of autonomy given to leader
replaced by PP Regulation on the of HEIs to decide: a) organisation management;
66/2010 Management and b) financial; c) academic; d) student affairs; e)
provision of human resources; f) facilities and infrastructure.
education Article 49 “fair access, give a formal education
without any discrimination”
2. In Public HEIs, government accounted for 60%
undergraduate students from National HE
Admission Examination, while 40% in according
to the admission stream each HEI (article 53B)
UU No 12/2012 The decree on 1. Signify the return of state-steering in HE
Higher Education 2. Decided that budget acquired from student
does not exceeds 30%
3. Autonomy provision (refers to previous
platform of PERMEN RI 17/2010) given to a
selective public HEIs that meet the criteria
assessed by the DGHE
4. Wealth of PTN BH is belong to the institution,
except land

33
 5. Emphasize on monitoring and evaluation
procedure (accreditation and accountability)
6. Introduced Pangkalan Data PT or Higher
Education Database
PERMENDIKBUD Ministerial Introduced Uang Kuliah Tunggal or Single Tuition
No 55/2013 Regulation on Fees rates aim to control continuous increasing fees
Tuition Fees and
Expenses of Public
Universities under
the MoEC
PP RI No 4/2014 Government 1. Article 4(1) mentioned “Minister is responsible
Regulation on the to ensure fair access (a), quality higher
Provision and education and availability of HEIs
Management of 2. Emphasized on, specific roles of Minister of
Higher Education Education and Culture on granting and revoking
permit of HEI and study program; b) regulating
the operational cost of HE and subsidy to PTN
Satker and BLU; c) granting opportunities for
disadvantaged students
3. Regulating, Planning, Monitoring, Evaluating,
Assisting, and Coordinating in HE provisions; b)
the establishment of HEI, study program; c)
degree, diploma, and certificate
Source: The table is developed from the previous research of Brewis (2016)

Not only deregulation of the state plays a role in Indonesian higher education policy-text. In
fact, the trend of government spending in the higher education sector is also gradually
decreasing. As for the records, World Bank (2015) reports that of the state’s expenditure on
education, the country spent 15.8% on higher education. This was still lower than in the
neighbouring countries of Malaysia (27.26%) and Brunnei Darussalam (28.5%). Then, I
decided to look at the trend of government spending in the Indonesian Higher Education

34
sector over the past few years, to get a sense of the loss of government role in higher
education.

Government Expenditure in Indonesian Higher Education

In the following Table 5, data is presented from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2016) in
the World Bank’s website, regarding Indonesian expenditure on education and higher
education. In general, the account of government spending in education has remained
constant from 2008-2015, at around 2% to 3%. Yet, if we look at it closely from 2009 to 2010,
the number dropped from 3.52 to 2.81%, in the year when the law on BHP (corporate
institution) was introduced. Although the number increased to 3.19% in 2011 (law on BHP
was revoked), the trend of government expenditure after 2012 has gradually decreased from
3.41% in 2012 to 3.28% in 2014 (after the law on PTN BH 12/2012 was stipulated). After
examining these figures, the excess of the neoliberalism-driven agenda in the loss of
government role seems to make more sense.
However, if we pay attention to the second category of Indonesian government spending in
higher education, the tendency of data presentation is not necessarily similar. In the second
category, budget allocation was far more dynamic, reaching 17.2% in 2012. Furthermore, in
contrast to the former case, higher education spending from 2009-2010 increased
surprisingly, despite the fact that the BHP law in 2009 was also problematic for HEIs.
Accordingly, the interesting feature from the data presentation is the similiarity of trends
happened 2012 to 2014 in the government spending on education and higher education, were
both reduced.

35
 Table 5
Indonesia’s Government Expenditure in Higher Education from 2008-2015
Indonesia 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Spent In education 2.90% 3.52% 2.81% 3.19% 3.41% 3.37% 3.28% 3.59%
(of % GDP)
Spent in higher 11.0% 12.2% 16.1% … 17.2% 16.4% 15.1% 15.8%
education (of %
education budget)
Source: World Bank Data (2016) on member countries expenditure in education

Governance and Accountability of PTN BH

The changes in the level of national policy have resulted in three types of status in Public HEIs
financial management, which are as follows: (1) Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Satuan Kerja
(SATKER); (2) Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Badan Layanan Umum (BLU); Perguruan Tinggi
Berbadan Hukum (PTN BH). In order to grasp a deeper understanding, the following Table 5
shows the distinct characteristics of each type of HEIs financial management in Indonesia.

36
 Table 6
Characteristics of Different Financial Management of Indonesian HEI
Features PTN-SATKER PTN-BLU PTN-BH
Legislation PP no.23 /2005 UU 12/2012 UU 12/2012; PP no.
PP 74/2-12 4/2014
Operational Statutes is decided in Statutes is decided in the Statutes is made by
basis the Ministerial Ministerial Regulation Majelis Wali
Regulation (PERMEN) (PERMEN) Amanah (MWA) and
Academic Senate of
PTN BH
Financial State budget (APBN) State budget (APBN) and Block grants,
Arrangement Non-tax state revenue/ Competitive grants,
Penerimaan Negara Bukan and profit-units
Pajak (PNBP) (enterprise)

Subsidy Fully subsidised by the Fully subsidised by the Minimum subsidy

government government from the
government (block
grants)
Budget Plan line-by-line budget Flexible budget (block Decided by
(RKA KL) grants) and need approval respective PTN BH
and need approval from the Minister of
from the Minister of Finance
Finance
Revenue Surplus must be 3. Surplus can be directly 1. Surplus can be
returned to the managed by PTN BLU directly
government 4. Deficit is covered by managed by
the state PTN BH
2. Deficit is
covered by PTN
BH

37
 Investment Not allowed Long term and must be Short term and long
presented to the Ministry term decided by the
of Finance Rektor/provost
Debts Not allowed 1. According to needs 1. According to
2. Debt is covered by the needs
government 2. Debt is covered
by PTN BH
Accounting SAP11 SAK12 dan SAP (integrated) SAK (entirely)
system
Wealth Belongs to the state Belongs to the state Belongs to PTN BH
(except Land)
Human Civil servants (PNS) 1. PNS purposed/ Appoint and dismiss
Resources Stipulated by Ministry approved by MENPAN- teacher and staff
of State Apparatus BR
and Bureaucratic 2. Appoint and dismiss
Reform (MENPAN-BR) teacher and staff
Source: Table is developed from documentary record of Indonesia’s Policy
(PP 23/2005; PP 74/2012; UU 12/2012; PP 4/2014)

According to UU 12/2012, in the case of PTN BH universities, the government gives minimum
funding (block grants) of one-third from the total operational cost/BOPTN13. While the
institution is in charge of two-thirds of the cost that they obtain from industry, for-profit units,
and from student’s tuition, surplus from BOPTN is used to build infrastructure and facilities,
to pay teachers, research, and other operational costs.

DGHE (2016) reports that there are currently 11 PTN BH universities, which are as follows:
Universitas Indonesia, Institut Teknologi Bandung; Institut Pertanian Bogor; Universitas
Gadjah Mada; Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia; Universitas Airlangga, Universitas Sumatera

11
SAP is accounting system that is used by the entity who responsible to provide goods and service
to the society
12
SAK is used by the entity who responsible to gain profit for the share owner
13
BOPTN (Biaya Operasional Perguruan Tinggi Negara)

38
Utara; Universitas Hasanuddin, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya; Universitas
Padjajaran and Universitas Diponegoro (PP No 4/2014).

The status of PTN-BH is given to qualified public HEIs based on the following criteria: top nine
university (national rank) in international journal publication and patent rights; accredited A
in institution’s level by BAN PT; two years of ‘unqualified opinion’ in Audit Board reports
(WTP); and students’ international achievement (UNHAS, 2016).

Decision Making in PTN BH

In PP no 4/2014 article 30, the organisers of the corporate institution of PTN BH are: (1)
Majelis Wali Amanat (MWA), trustee board which are responsible for a stipulated policy,
advising the implementation of general policies, and supervising non-academic matters.
MWA consists of representatives from the government, teacher, society, and others (30c); (2)
Leader of the University, operating the institution, and assisted by two vice-rectors. Academic
and non-academic respectively (30e). The rector is responsible for the MWA. (3) Academic
Senate (consists of teachers from different disciplines), responsible for stipulated policies,
advising decision making and supervising academic matters. The implementation of this
decree, such as the size of MWA and academic senate are regulated separately in statutes
made by the respective PTN BH (DGHE, Statutes of HEI in Indonesia, 2017). Additionally, in
terms of the Rector’s election, voting systems are applied. According to Ministerial Decree No
1/2015, the Minister of Education received 35% of the votes, while 65% is possessed by the
Academic Senate. The state retains an immense influence over the result.

Accountability of PTN BH

In contrast to PTN SATKER, PTN BLU is directly under the minister’s responsibility. The PTN BH
institution is accountable to MWA (Majelis Wali Amanat) in accordance with the national
higher education vision and mission. In this respect, MWA represents the public.
Furthermore, MWA is also challenged with forming an audit body that will work
independently to evaluate internal working units (rector, teacher, academic, and so forth).
The external audit is handled by Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan or a state audit agency and the
expenses from the state budget or remaining subsidy are handled separately. However, due
to the limitation of human resources, the responsibility of auditing PTN BH financial matters
also goes to the public accountant.

39
Fair Access to HE in Indonesian Policy-text

As was illustrated earlier in this study (Table 1), the educational reform in Indonesia has
resulted not only in the increasing autonomy of corporate higher education institutiond (PTN
BH), but also in the growing number of HEIs with expanded access (Susanti, 2011. Pp.213 ). In
Indonesia, the notion of Penerimaan berkeadlian, or fair admission is interchangeable with
providing fair access. The Government is responsible for 60% of student admissions from the
National Higher Education Admission Selection/SNMPT, while 40% is for the respective HEIs
to decide the streams/SBMPTN (UU 20/2003). A Non-discriminatory approach to admission is
often referred to in the national policy-text. Article 4(f) UU BHP 2009 “akses berkeadilan/fair
access is to deliver formal education service to the prospective student and student without
having to consider background of religion, race, ethnicity, social status and economical
capability”; Article 49(2e) PP 66/2010 stated “penerimaan berkeadlian/fair admission means
giving formal education for the learners without further exception”; followed up by UU
12/2012 (article 32; 31; 74) about the provision of special education for student with special
needs, and article 74(1) “Public HEIs are obliged to find and receive prospective student who
has high academic potential yet unable to afford economically and prospective student who
come from 3T of leading edge, outer and left-behind’s region (Tertinggal, Terdepan, Terluar).
At least 20% from the total student admission” and permendiknas 126/2016, article 3(a)
“student admission shall not exclude any religion, race, ethnicity, sex, age, social position,
physical circumstance and economy capacity, of the prospective student”. Although in the
policy-text this is all compulsory, the follow up is still based on the discretion of respective
HEIs. The policy of non-discriminatory admission on a national level is translated into
affirmative actions by each of Public HEIs (will be discussed later) to remove barriers such as
cost, special needs and other during years of study.

Another platform that has been established to ensure the availability of fair access to higher
education is the Indonesian Qualification Framework (IQF). As quoted in Presidential
Regulation No 8/2012 “IQF is unified reference of national standards that aim to equalise
learning outcomes from formal/informal/non-formal education, as well as from work
experience”. IQF consists of 9 levels which are characterised by learning outcomes and skill
competencies (see Figure 2). Through IQF, learners who obtain their competencies either
formally/informally, or in a non-formal manner or through work experience can receive equal

40
recognition on the same level of qualification. This helps to increase learner’s mobility across
educational types. For instance, a person with operational skills (proven by necessary
documents) is equal to vocational senior high school, therefore is allowed to enrol in Diploma
I (D I), or a student who graduated from the vocation Diploma IV (D IV) can enrol in aformal
academic education (S1/Undergraduate) and so forth.

Figure 2

Source: MoRTHE (2012)

Nevertheless, the attempts to provide fair access in the policy-text do not necessarily
resonate with the quality of education delivered by HEIs.

HEIs Accreditation and Quality Assurance

The notion of quality assurance was first mentioned in UU 20/2003 “every citizen has the right
to obtain quality of education”. In Indonesia, the quality assessment of HEIs is the
responsibility of the National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT)14,
established in 1994 and of the Independent Board for Higher Education Accreditation (LAM-
PT)15. The former assesses the institution, while the latter assesses the study program. Both
operate under the supervision of DGHE.

14
Badan Akreditasi Nasional – Perguruan Tinggi. Retrieved from https://www.banpt.or.id/
15
Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri – Perguruan Tinggi. So farr only one LAM-PT I in Indonesia which accredited
health school. Retrieved from http://dev.lamptkes.org/akreditasi/database/databasehasilakreditasi

41
The updated guidelines of BAN-PT and LAM-PT are regulated by Ministerial Decrees No
4/2015 and No 62/2016, about quality assurance systems and the accreditation of HEIs. The
quality is examined based on two separate assessments of the internal (done by the
institution themselves) and the external (validation from BAN-PT).

BAN-PT assessment-criteria can be divided into two categories: first, reflecting the
components of leadership and institutional development (vision, mission, governance,
facility, funding, information system, and so forth); and second, reflecting the components of
quality and efficiency in the program (curriculum, quality assurance, students, and so forth).
Matters such as research-work undertaken by the teacher, teacher qualifications, diversity of
courses, journal publication (international/regional), and the length of time before the
graduates get a job are all considered. The assessment is based on a quantitative approach of
scoring credits in each criterion. The result will determine the Institution’s accreditation: A
(very good) with a score: range of 361-400; B (good) with a score 301-360; C (fair) with a score
200-300, and Not accredited with a score of less than 200.
Table 7
Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and Study Programs in Indonesia in 2017
Accreditation Institution (HEIs) Study Programs
A 50 2.512
B 345 9.922
C 736 7.820
Unaccredited 3.404 5.000
Total 4535 HEIs 25.254 Study Programs
Source: Indonesian Higher Education Database (in ACDP, 2017)

As illustrated in Table 7, the number of HEIs accredited ‘C’ (736 institutions) surpasses the
institutions that are accredited ‘B’ (345 Institutions), while only 50 HEIs were accredited ‘A’.
Obviously, there is a problem with the quality-gap among institutions. Furthermore, if we
scrutinise the data, out of the 50 ‘A’ accredited universities, only 15 are Private (KOPERTIS XII,
2017). Meanwhile, the private HEIs account for over 91.3% of higher education institutions in
Indonesia (see Table 1). Not to mention that there are still 3,404 institutions and 5,000 study
programmes that have not obtained accreditation at all. The data indicates a substantial
qualitative problem of HEIs operating in Indonesia. The proportion of unaccredited

42
institutions overwhelm the accredited ones, meaning that not all students are offered quality
education.

National Student Admission of Public HE

As I have explained earlier, the government of Indonesia is responsible for selecting 60% of
undergraduate applicants to enter every public HEI, while 40% are select by each institution
(PP 66/2010). Based on PERMENDIKNAS No 126/2016, the national selection stream is divided
into three (see Table 7), which is as follows: Seleksi Nasional Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Negeri
(SNMPTN)/National Selection of Public University; Seleksi Bersama Masuk Perguruan Tinggi
Negeri (SBMPTN)/Joint Entrance Selection of Public University; Seleksi Mandiri/Independent
Selection.
Table 8
Undergraduate Student Admission Stream in Public University
Feature SNMPTN SBMPTN Mandiri
Host Government Respective HEIs Respective HEIs
Selection Academic Portfolio 1. Written examination of Tes The criteria is set
/ Jalur Undangan Potensi Akademik (TPA)/ according to each
Academic Potential Test institution.
either use Paper Based
Testing (PBT) and
Computer Based Testing
(CBT)
2. Skills performance
Cost Government Government subsidy (shared Charged to
subsidy (shared cost) individual
cost) applicant
Quota of At least 30% in At least 30% in every study Maximum 30% in
capacity every study program every study
program program
Source: National Education Ministerial Regulation (PERMEN) No 126, 2016

43
In SNMPTN, every high school can recommend a list of their high-achieving students to be
selected by the government. However, the threshold for recommendation is set based on the
school’s reputation, in this respect its accreditation. Accredited ‘A’ school can submit 50% of
its best students; accredited ‘B’ can submit 30%; accredited ‘C’ can only submit 10%; and other
accreditations get only 5%. This aims to ensure that a high quality of students enter public
university. Yet, inevitably, this strategy also exacerbates the opportunities of more able
students from low accredited schools to get the opportunities of SNMPTN.

On the other hand, in SBMPTN, the written examination is conducted in two forms. Students
can choose to take a computer based test (CBT) or a paper based test (PBT). In 2017, the
National Secretary of SBMPT identified low numbers of participants in the computer based
16
test: 776,000 students use PBT and 20,000 use CBT. The lack of sufficient technology
installed in most of the deprived regions has resulted in more CBT being taken in the
developed cities compared to the underdeveloped regions.

The last stream is Jalur Mandiri. Each public university has full authority to decide their entire
procedure, which is regulated in a separate document of rector regulation. Jalur Mandiri
claims to accommodate students who fail to pass SNMPT and SBMPT. In general, the criteria
is a student who obtains an achievement in either an academic (science competition) or non-
academic subject (say, art or sport), and who will be capable of paying high fees. The
educational cost of this particular stream is not subsidised by the government, and public
universities can only receive a maximum of 30% of its students from Jalur Mandiri (see Table
8).

As illustrated in the following Table 9, each PTN BH has a different way of holding Jalur
Mandiri: some universities apply merit-based tests in the form of examinations, some use the
portfolio of a competition winner, while few might use the grades that the student obtained
from previous tests (SBMPTN). These different approaches generate different dynamics in
each institution. For instance, the case of ITB. Before it was repealed in 2011, ITB offered
admission through Jalur Mandiri called USM (Ujian Saringan Masuk). In 2004, the government
subsidy removal –like in many other BHMN universities, meant that 20% of the financial needs

16
Retrieved from https://www.pojokjogja.com/yogyakarta/pojok-kampus/2017/05/18/sbmptn-berbasis-
komputer-tak-penuhi-target/

44
had to be covered by the institution (Welch in Susanti, 2011). ITB decided to offer USM
admission to 20% of their student intake who failed the SNMPTN /SPMB selection, and were
willing to pay the IDR 45 million entrance-fee to the institute. Ten places were offered at the
faculty of physical engineering, each of the seats costing IDR 225 million or USD 26,470
(Pp.221). The decision of the institution to offer limited seats with higher prices illustrates the
market presence. In market competition, price is the best indicator of quality (Browne in
McGettingan, 2013). Students are taken as customers who will opt to buy expensive goods,
because the quality is ensured. That case alone raised enourmous criticism upon the
marketisation of Indonesian Higher Education. Yet, it took seven years before the ITB
abolished the USM.

Today, out of 11 PTN BH, 8 universities provide Jalur Mandiri as an alternate option for
students who were not recommendeded by their school in SNMPTN, or fail to pass SBMPTN.
If we observe the data carefully, three universities do not require examinations when
selecting students through jalur mandiri. Instead, they use the student’s previous grades (in
SBMPTN). On one hand, there is a strong assumption that higher education entrance should
at least be based on meritocracy, as it functions as a quality control. However, Tierney (2007)
in his article ‘Merit and Affirmative Action in Education’ points out that “the role of public HEIs
is not to confirm someone’s past academic excellence while they are on their way to Higher
Education; instead, it ensure the excellence on the way out of the institution”. If, in this regard,
Jalur Mandiri is claimed to be an affirmative action given by public HEIs to those with special
skills and abilities who did not pass the entrance exam (SNMPTN and SBMPTN), then neither
holding a second examination nor admitting students based on their past grades is
necessary.17

17
Debate and discussion around affirmative actions in Indonesian higher education will be discussed in the
next chapter

45
 Table 9
Jalur Mandiri Features in Undergraduate Admission of PTN BH Universites

Jalur Mandiri
PTN BH University Examination Description
Yes No
Universitas Indonesia (UI) X - -
Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) X Repealed jalur mandiri (USM) in 2011
Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) x Required IPB has 3 types: Ujian Talenta Masuk IPB (UTMI),
Prestasi International (PIN), and International
Admission18
Universitas Gadjah Mada x Required UGM offers 3 types: Penelusuran Bibit Unggul
(UGM) Tidak Mampu (PBUTM), Seleksi Ujian Tulis
(UTUL), and International Program.19
Universitas Pendidikan x Required UPI offers Seleksi Mandiri, Dual Mode UPI, and
Indonesia (UPI) Seleksi Mandiri 3T (leading edge, outer and left-
behind)20

18
Retrieved from http://admisi.ipb.ac.id/
19
Retrieved from http://um.ugm.ac.id/v.2015/id_home.php?l=aWRfcGFnZSMxNzAxMTAxI1JhZ2FtIFNlbGVrc2kjMSNQcm9ncmFtIFNhcmphbmE=
20
Retrieved from http://sm.pmb.upi.edu/

50
 Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR) x Not required UNAIR only offer Jalur Mandiri21
(SBMPTN grade is
required)
Universitas Sumatera Utara x Required USU offers Ujian Masuk Bersama Perguruan
(USU) Tinggi22
Universitas Hasanuddin x Not required UNHAS offers 3 types: Non-Subsidy, POSK
(UNHAS) (SBMPTN grade is (achievement in international competition) and
required) International Class23
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh x Not Required ITS offers 2 types: Cooperation program
Nopember (ITS) (except when enrol (admission for an applicant who is the
in Design Product) representative of ITS Partners (either local
government or enterprise) and Program
Mandiri.24
Universitas Padjajaran (Unpad) X - Repealed Jalur Mandiri in 2014
Universitas Diponegoro (Undip) x Required UNDIP offers 2 types : Seleksi Bibit Unggul
Berprestasi and Seleksi Mandiri25

Source: Developed from the official website of the respective Universities

21
Retrieved from http://ppmb.unair.ac.id/web/site/mandiri
22
Retrieved from http://www.usu.ac.id/
23
Retrieved from https://unhas.ac.id/article/title/jalur-mandiri-unhas-dibuka-3-juli-2017
24
Retrieved from https://smits.its.ac.id/sarjana/#pkm
25
Retrieved from https://um.undip.ac.id/

51
Student Scholarship

I have previously mentioned issues of fair access. The DGHE put attention on those students
who were hindered from accessing Higher Education due to their economic inabilities. PP
66/2010 article 53(a) “education cost assistance and scholarship is given at least to 20% of the
total students”. The Indonesian government therefore enacted a scholarship scheme to help
achieve equitable access in higher education, these are namely (1) Bidik Misi; (2) Beasiswa
Peningkatan Prestasi Akademik/PPA; (3) Beasiswa Bantuan Belajar Mahasiswa/BBM. The
mentioned scholarships are the government’s “pro-poor policy”, offered to undergraduate
students. Under these schemes, both public and private HEIs act on an operational level of
holding a local selection for scholarship awardees, and distributing the government funds from
APBN (state budget).

Bidik Misi

The scholarship is only given once the students have enrolled in the university. The Bidik Misi
scholarship was introduced in 2010, and was allocated to 104 public universities in Indonesia
(PP 66/2010). According to DGHE (2014), in 2012 there were around 3,000 students from
public universities who received bidik misi, with the total funding of 682 USD or equal to IDR
6 million for each student per semester. Meanwhile, in 2013, around 2,000 students from
Private HEIs received bidik misi. Under this scholarship, some of the money is transferred to
the university to pay the tuition fees, while the rest is sent to the student as a living allowance.
However, with the expansion of higher education institutions, the budget allocated for bidik
misi has been gradually decreased (World Bank, 2015)

PPA and BBM

Similar to bidik misi, these scholarships are offered to those who are already enrolled as
students in the university. Both of these scholarships aim to reduce the number of drop-out
students from universities, and the incentives of those with strong academic and non-
academic achievements, with high GPAs or champions of art or sport competition. Each
student receives around 34 USD or IDR 300,000 per semester.

52
Scholarship from Indonesian Ministries

Beasiswa Unggulan was established in 2009 by the MoEC.26 It offers educational funding for
all applicants who wish to enrol in any of the following degrees: undergraduate (S1), master
(S2 or PHD (S3). It has the criteria of minimum GPA or national examination grades,
IELTS/TOEFL scores, and so forth. The other scholarships are the LPDP (Indonesian
endowment funds) for education which is funded by the Ministry of Finance, and the DIKTI
scholarship is funded by MoRTHE, and is only available to those who have a minimum degree
of a bachelors (S1).

Scholarship from Local Government

Besides the government scholarships that are distributed by HEIs, the local government
(pemerintah daerah) is also obligated to cater to students in need. In the PP 66/2010 article
76 it is mentioned that the local government must cater to the right of students who come
from lacking socio-economic backgrounds in the following manner: (1) scholarship granted to
the academically outstanding student; (2) tuition-wave; (3) interest-free student loan that
must be paid after graduation or on obtaining a job. The latter notion of ‘student loan’ is not
popular nor commonly provided in Indonesia. For instance, scholarships offered by the local
government of Jambi, West Java, Papua and so forth.

After going through the documents regarding these scholarships, it seems that very few
scholarship schemes are offered to applicants with high school graduate status, with some
scholarships only available to existing students, while the rest like LPDP and DIKTI have the
minimum requirement of a bachelor’s degree.

Students Tuition Fees

Starting from the period of 2013-2014, the government imposed a new tuition fee system.
Ministerial Regulation No 55/2013 stipulated the guidelines of Uang Kuliah Tunggal (UKT) or
single tuition-fee, which started from 2013 onwards. In the Article 1 stated “UKT is the
accumulation of the whole operational cost per student per semester who enrolled in public
university”; article 2 “it is charged in accordance to economic capability of each student”. In
the policy-text, the aim is to decrease the burden of those who come from low economy

26
Retrieved from http://beasiswaunggulan.kemdiknas.go.id/

53
backgrounds, and to control the increasing tuition. The Government suggests that under UKT,
a cross-subsidy will be applied

The UKT scheme is divided into different categories of fees, ranging from the lowest rate to
the highest rate. In the case of PTN BH universities, the range of fees is decided by the
institution. It is regulated separately in their respective Peraturan Rektor (rector regulation),
although the government set a baseline for the two lowest rates of group I and II to be
assigned at least 5% fee of the total UKT. However, the cost of other categories/groups can
differ completely from one PTN BH to another. The following table is a comparison of UKT
that was applied at four different PTN BH universities, particularly in courses relating to Maths
and Science:

Table 10
UKT of Math and Science’s Course in Four Different PTN BH (IDR)

Rate Category ITB UI IPB UNHAS

Group I 400,000 0-1,000,000 500,000 0-500,000
Group II 800,000 1,000,000- 1,000,000 750,000
2,000,000
Group III 4,000,000 2,000,000- 2,400,000 2,000,000
3,000,00
Group IV 8,000,000 3,000,000- 3,800,000 4,500,000
4,000,000
Group V 10,000,000 4,000,000- 5,200,000 -
7,500,000
Group VI - - 6,600,000 -
Group VII - - 8,100,000 -
Group VIII - - 9,600,000 -
Source: Indonesian Government Regulation (PP) No 55/2013 about UKT

The above illustration of the UKT relates to Maths and Science. Each university has a different
rate and category of UKT. The above illustration of IPB has eight groups (I-VIII), UI and ITB has
five groups (I-V), while UNHAS has four groups (I-IV). The fee is also different from one

54
university to another. If we look at the rate of ITB, the rate from group II to III increases by
20%, while the price of group III to group IV is doubled from IDR 4,000,000 to IDR 8,000,000.

Case of Universitas Indonesia (UI)

Universitas Indonesia is one of the oldest Higher Education Institutions in the country: it was
established in 1849 by the Dutch government 96 years before independence. It is located in
Depok and Jakarta, Java. It was initially founded as an institute that specialised in medicine.27
UI had gone through the country’s transformation under different regimes and political
landscapes, from a socialist first president Soekarno, to the liberal authoritarian government
Soeharto, and even became one of the key student movement in the 1998 fight for Soeharto’s
resignation and the country’s reformation. Universitas Indonesia is one of the first universities
that was granted the status of State Owned Corporate Institution or Badan Hukum Milik
Negara (BHMN) in autonomy of academic development and financial management. UI
officially became a PTN BH university after the establishment of UU 12/2012.

The institution is now one of the few Indonesian HEIs that is ranked in the QS Top 500
Universities (2017)28, ranked 67th in Asian University Rankings (2017)29. It ranks in first place
in Indonesia and in 14th place in Southeast-Asia, based on the Webometrics Ranking of World
Universities (2017), having been granted excellent accreditation both by BAN PT and ASEAN
University Network on Higher Education for Quality Assurance (AUN). According to Humas
UI30, in 2016 there were 45,552 students enrolled in six types of education provisions in the
university, which are: Diploma 3 (D3) around 3,238 students; Bachelor Degree (S1) 27,740
students; Master Degree (S2) 9,423 students; Doctorate Degree (S3) 1,643 students;
Profession 929 students; and specialist 2,579 students. The University has 13 faculties and
291 study programmes.

Admission

UI academic provision is divided into regular programmes (S1, S2, and S3) and non-regular
programmes (S1 Parallel, Vocational, Profession, and Specialist). The admission of the S1

27
Rear further at https://www.ui.ac.id/en/about-us/about-ui/history.html
28
Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/universitas-indonesia
29
Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2016
30
Interview with Interviewee 3 (Public Relation UI)

55
Regular program is only available in two streams: SBMPTN and SNMPTN “[…] we refer solely
to the government regulation pertaining S1 national admission streams […] 30% allocated for
those who pass SNMPTN and 70% for SBMPTN”.31 Meanwhile, in non-regular programs,
student is admitted through SIMAK and PPKB “we want to make sure that we offer equal
opportunities for the prospective students from all over Indonesia”. The following table depicts
the admission streams based on the respective educational programmes in Universitas
Indonesia
Table 11
Admission Streams of Respective Educational Program in Universitas Indonesia

Number of Admission
Educational Program Description
Study Program Stream
Regular Program
S1 Regular Bachelor degree program which 62 SNMPTN and
accept the graduates of SBMPTN
SMA/SMK/MA, with the diploma
obtained not exceed 3 years
Non-Regular Program
Vocational (D3) Diploma program which aims to 11 PPKB and
prepare skills and professionals SIMAK UI
to work in their field
S1 Parallel Senior High Bachelor degree program which 31 SIMAK UI
School (SMA/SMK/MA) accept the graduates of
SMA/SMK/MA at any age
S1 Parallel Graduates Vocational Bachelor degree 10 PPKB and
D3 program which accept the SIMAK-
graduates of D3 at any age. Ekstensi
S1 Graduates Extension Bachelor degree program which 4 SIMAK-
D3 accept D3 graduates to obtain Ekstensi
the same competency and use

31
Interview with Interviewee 4 (Student Admission Office UI)

56
 the same curriculum as the
regular program.
Profession Bachelor program that prepare 3 SIMAK UI
students to obtain specific skills
required by their job
Specialist Subject-specific education 41 SIMAK UI
offered to the graduates of
profession program
S2 Academic program offered to 67 SIMAK UI
the graduates of bachelor/equal
S3 Academic program offered to 36 SIMAK UI
the graduates of magister/equal
Source: Developed from the website of Student Admission Universitas Indonesia (2017)

As is shown in the above table, despite the SNMPTN and SBMPTN, there are two other
streams that are used to select students: PPKB and SIMAK UI. Prestasi dan Pemerataan
Kesempatan Belajar (PPKB) or Achievement and Equitable Learning Opportunities. It is a non-
examination selection that aims to provide equitable learning opportunities, especially for
students who come from the 3T Region (leading-edge, outer and left behind)32. The other is
SIMAK UI. Before 2016, UI offered SIMAK as one of the admission streams for both regular
and non-regular educational programmes. SIMAK or Seleksi Masuk Universitas Indonesia is an
integrated selection examination for students. The test is conducted in most Indonesian
regions (Sumatera, Sulawesi and Java), with the annual test socialisation at 3T Region
(Leading-edge, outer and left behind)33

Some argue that SIMAK UI is Jalur Mandiri, in that it is not subsidised by the government, and
that the university is allowed to set the price at any cost. However, the university argues that
SIMAK is not Jalur Mandiri. Unlike Jalur Mandiri, those who are enrolled through SIMAK will
be paying based on the same procedure as other streams34. After 2016, SIMAK is no longer
open for S1 Regular. Instead, it is now enrolling students from Non-Regular programmes of

32
PPKB invitation will be sent to schools that need to be empowered. The discretion of schools number and
applicants are based on the discretion of Universitas Indonesia.
33
Interview with Interviewee 4 (Student Admission Office UI)
34
Interview with Interviewee 4 (Student Admission Office UI)

57
Vocational (D3), S1 International Class, S1 Parallel High School Graduates (SMA/SMK/MA), S1
Graduates Parallel D3, Graduates Extension D3, Profession, Specialist, S2, and S3. (Universitas
Indonesia, 2017). While S1 Regular is paid by UKT alone, students from the mentioned Non-
Regular programs still have to pay a range of charges: BOP (Educational Operational Cost);
DFKM (Student Facilities and Welfare Funds); Development Fund/DP; Education Support
Fund/DPP (UI Rector Regulation No 25/2017)

BOP (Biaya Operasional Pendidikan)

BOP or Fair Operational Cost is terminology used to describe the single-tuition system in UI,
referring to the entire operational cost per student per semester. Universitas Indonesia claim
that it has been applying the system of BOP/UKT for years prior to national obligations
imposed by the government in 2013.35 There are two kinds of BOP: first is BOP-B or Biaya
Operasional Pendidikan-Berkeadilan; second is BOP-P or Biaya Operasional Pendidikan-
Pilihan.
BOP-Berkeadlian (BOP-B) is a scheme of cost that is charged in accordance with an individual’s
economy capability. Conversely, BOP-Pilihan (BOP-P) is a scheme of cost that is decided by
the students/family based on their willingness to contribute to help the educational cost of
S1 Regular in UI through pay higher BOP. In the case of UI, BOP-B is interchangeable with UKT.
BOP-B is divided into two groups of knowledge: first, Science and Technology (IPA) that is
charged within the range of IDR 0 - 7.5000.000; second, Social Science (IPS) that is charged
within the range of IDR 0 - 5.000.000. The following table shows the percentage of S1 Regular
students who receive BOP-B in 2016.

35
Humas UI. Retrieved from http://simak.ui.ac.id/program-pendidikan.html

58
 Table 12
The Percentage of Student with BOP-B in Universitas Indonesia 2016
Group Science and Technology Social Humaniora Total %
Range of Cost Students Range of Cost Students
I 0 – 2,000,000 401 0-1,500,000 433 834 20.79
II 2,000,000- 357 1,500,000- 320 677 16.87
4,000,000 3,000,000
III 4,000,000- 219 3,000,000- 220 439 10.94
6,000,000 4,000,000
IV 6,000,000- 866 4,000,000- 605 1471 36.67
7,000,000 5,000,000
Source: Directorate of Finance Universitas Indonesia (2017)

From 4.012 students S1 Regular in 201636, 85% or 3421 students received BOP-B (see Table
12), although the highest percentage of students was distributed in group IV (36.67%).
Nevertheless, it was successfully allocated to more than 20% of group I, as regulated by the
government (UU 12/2012). The university points out that BOP-B is a form of affirmative
action, besides the availability of scholarship like bidik misi. It compensates for a student’s
economic difficulties. For instance, in the course of Medical and Science in Universitas
Indonesia (see Figure 3 and 4).

36
Interview with Interviewee 4 (Student Admission Office)

59
 Figure 3

Total Educational Cost of Medical and Science in UI without BOP-B/UKT

Total Educational Cost

Tuition Fee of Medical and 10 Semesters
science in UI/semester 15,000,000 * 10

IDR 15,000,000 = IDR 150,000,000/student

Figure 4
Educational Cost of Medical Science for 10 Semesters per Student in UI with BOP-B/UKT

Tuition Fee of Medical and

science in UI/semester

IDR 15,000,000

Total Cost Group I Total Cost Group V

1,000,000 * 10 7,500,000 * 10

= IDR 10,000,000 = IDR 75,000,000

Total Cost Group II Total Cost Group IV

2,000,000 * 10 4,000,000 * 10

= IDR 20,000,000 = IDR 40,000,000

Total Cost Group III
3,000,000 * 10

= IDR 30,000,000

As illustrated in the above two figures, paying under the regular tuition scheme will cost IDR
150,000,000/student for ten semesters, or five years of study. Meanwhile, with the same
length of time, the maximum payment that students made under BPO-B was IDR
75,000,000/student. Furthermore, the former scheme did not include extra charges for
university credit units/SKS, laboratory costs, infrastructure development fees, and so forth,
whereas the BPO-B encompasses all payments. The Government therefore claim that UKT is

60
a manifestation of providing affordable higher education in Indonesia.37 In the UI Rector
Regulation No 17/2017 article 2, base-principle stated “Universitas Indonesia ensures no
student will be dropped out of the university due to the problem of educational cost”. This
statement was mentioned quite often in interviews “[…] as long as they are smart, nothing
like cost of education will prevent them from being our student […] we will try to help find a
solution for money […]”38. However, the implementation of BPO-P in UI is not necessarily
similar to the experience of other PTN BHs. Some of the PTN BH have received strong
resentment from students for applying UKT in their university39

Scholarships

As a PTN BH university, it receives encouragement to cooperate with either the local

government, non profit organisations or for profit enterprise/industry to establish Tridharma
Perguruan Tinggi or Three Pillars of Higher Education (UU 12/2012). 40 However, more funding
is gained from private sources rather than from the government. In Universitas Indonesia
there are currently 59 Funding Donors41, broken down into 8 from the government (local and
national), and 51 private donors. The private donors vary from banks, non-profit foundations,
university allumnae associations, large automotive companies, expert associations, NGOs and
even individual donors, indicating a strong privatisation of the government in Universitas
Indonesia. As McGettingan (2013: pp 112) stated, the privatisation in higher education is not
only to cut off the subsidies, but also to divert the funding stream and the responsibility to
protect the institutions from bankruptcy.

Nevertheless, In 2016, the funding from the mentioned donors reached approximately IDR
149,840,674,596 or around USD 11.217.311, and was allocated to 37,440 students across the
educational programmes and scholarship donors.

37
Interview with Interviewee 1, MoRTHE
38
Interview with Interviewee 5, Students Welfare Office Universitas Indonesia
39
Will be discussed in the next chapter
40
Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi is basic principle of higher education provision in Indonesia. It consist of
Education (Pendidikan); Research (Penelitian); and Community Service (Pengabdian Masyarakat)
41
The list of Donors will be attached (Appendix)

61
 Table 13
Universitas Indonesia Scholarship Report in 2016
Source Amount of D3 S1 S2 S3 Specialist Total
Scholarships & Scholarship
( IDR ) Profession Awardee
Government 76,245,643,296 98 9945 1554 788 267 12,652

Private 8,167,506,300 11 3300 0 0 0 3311

UI Scholarship 4,325,300,000 18 317 0 0 1050 1385

Compensation 61,102,225,000 0 200092 0 0 1,317 20092

in BPO-B
Total 149,840,674,596 127 33654 1554 788 2634 37440

Source: (Directorate of Student Affair Universitas Indonesia , 2016)

Yet, if we scrutinise the data (see Table 13), the most funding went to S1 programmes with
33,654 students, and the least went to the D3 program around 127 students. The lack of
priority towards Diploma 3 or vocational programs (especially from the government) is
unfortunate, not only because the state aims to boost skills and professionals to work in
industries such as manufacture, but also because more students from underdeveloped
regions and poor families are attracted to vocational programmes, as it is easier to find a job.

Recalling the government mandate to ‘select and receive’ 20% students with disadvantaged
socio-economic background, the attainment can be seen from the percentage of these
students that receive scholarships (bidik misi). As with any other PTN, Universitas Indonesia
is charged with the government scholarship’s distribution and local selection (like Bidik Misi,
PPA and BBM). In the academic year 2016/2017, according to the data of the Directorate of
Student Affair Universitas Indonesia (2017), out of 18,604 students of S1 regular, only 3,10 %
students from low economy backgrounds received Bidik Misi. This might be aggravated by the
affirmative action of empowering the presence of the underrepresented group.

62
Case of Universitas Gunadarma

Gunadarma is one of the most prominent Private University in Indonesia; it was initially
founded as Computer Science Education Program in 1981, with a specialised field of math and
computer. It is located in Depok, the main island of Java. In 2012, the University awarded ‘Best
Private University in Indonesia’. Universitas Gunadarma also elevated its national rank from
rank 5th in 2011 to 4th in 2012 according to National Rank Indonesia. In 2014, it was awarded
as the best private HEIs mebo metrics in 2014.

The university currently offers 26 educational programs across degree. In 2016, the
Universitas Gunadarma points out that the university acquires a good reputation regarding
quality assurance and monitoring from the KOPERTIS (Regional Coordinator of Private
University). The 26th educational program consists of 5 Diploma Programs, 12 Undergraduate
Programs, 7 Master Programs, two doctorate programs. With 85% of the study programs have
been accredited ‘A’ while the rest is ‘B’. The university is one of the very few private university
with constant quality across educational programs.

There are two streams of student admission: PMDK and Regular. PMDK is offered for those
who have excellent academic grade and will receive the subsidy. Meanwhile, a regular stream
is provided for the applicants who enrol in Gunadarma with standard fees. The tuition fee
consists of four cost: 1) Biaya Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan Pagi or educational provision cost;
2) Satuan Kredit Semester (SKS) or university credit system; 3) infrastructure development; 4)
Profession certification. Regarding funding, like any other private university, Gunadarma does
not receive any subsidy from the government. Instead, they admit that the only way to get
funding by the government is through a competitive grant, which is difficult. The university
also explain some of the concern about the position as private institution

“[…] we were established back then, to help the government provide more access to
higher education […] it should not in the form of subsidy […] there must be more
incentive given by the government, especially about the expansion of courses.”

So far, Universitas Gunadarma has 42 partners, from a bank, a mobile company, local
government, foundation, and television enterprise, other universities (national and
international), and around 42 Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat or community

63
empowerment organisation. The university held monthly events and educational training,
especially about information and technology.

Inclusivity: Meaning and Practice

Following the trajectories of education reform in Indonesia from 1999-2016 (see Table 4).
Indeed there is a massive reduction of the government role in the sector of Higher Education,
now and then. The policy negotiation that underpinned by privatisation in higher education
have resulted into the deduction of the government spending in higher education, take
example after the establishment of UU No 12/12, the government expenditure on both
education and higher education was gradually decreased 2 -3% from 2012 to 2014 (see Table
5). The Interviewee from Universitas Indonesia explained,

“We regretted that the autonomy was considered to be no longer entitled to the
government […] nowadays PTN BH universities are no longer receive a particular
budget. Instead, they give us block grants which the trend is decreasing gradually now”
– Respondent 3, Universitas Indonesia

The Neoliberalism shifts the premise of the state to protect its citizens in a way that it
legitimates the social exclusion as ‘inevitable fate’ (Bauman, 2006. Pp 4). Sloth & Jacobsen
(2011) claims that the womb of neoliberalism is economic Darwinism of "elimination of the
unfit" which refers to the replacement of an individual which does not accord with the profit
or utility maximisation. In higher education, the ‘survival of the fittest’ begin even before one
gets into the university. The competition to enter Universitas Indonesia is highly intense,
especially in such a popular subject such as medicine, the selectivity rate is only around 2%-
5%.

UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report (2012), in Indonesia only 2% out of 257.6 million
individual who comes from the most deprived group and has completed the Higher Education.
It is vivid that there lies a gap in completion rate between the richest 37% compared to the
other group like middle (8%) and poor (4%). Not to mention there are 3,404 HEIs and 25,254
study programs in Indonesia that remain unaccredited (ACDP, 2017), exacerbated the
opportunities for the society to get the quality higher education.

64
There are ample of Indonesian government policies that explicitly mention the importance of
‘non-discriminative’ approach to higher education, particularly in providing learning
opportunities (UU 20/2003; UU BHP 2009; PP 66/2010; UU/2012; PERMENDIKNAS 2016).
McCowan (2016) developed three criteria in looking at the fair access to higher education,
which are: 1) Accessibility, it is the availability of procedures to enter the institutions); 2)
Availability, it is the sufficient places in the institution proportionate to the age of group); 3)
Horizontality, it is the consistent quality across HE institution rather than qualification of
quality.

As I have explained in the previous chapter of findings, the terms of penerimaan berkeadlian
or fair admission in Higher Education policy-text are frequently mentioned. However, it mainly
addressed two groups: students who come from a poor socio-economic background and
students who come from deprived regions of 3T of Terdepan, Terluar, Tertinggal (leading-
edge, outer, and left behind). Although in few articles of the regulations also mentioned about
a student with disability and admission regardless one’s race, religion and ethnicity. There are
quite a lot of followed-up policies that compulsory in the former two groups in comparison to
the latter ones.

The idea of inclusivity in Indonesian higher education policy-text is implied in the provision of
equitable access and learning opportunities. The same thing is also somehow mirrored in a
way the Universities perceives inclusivity in education. Based on the interviews that I have
conducted, the discussion about inclusivity is ‘naturally’ narrowed (or at least begin) with the
provision of access. As I quoted from interviews with both of universities

“[…] inclusivity means increasing education’s access for poor people. For instance,
accessibility is given through scholarships. As stated in the national decree, minimum
20% should be allocated to the poor student. ” – Interviewee I, Universitas Gunadarma

Meanwhile, Universitas Indonesia emphasise the importance of the excellence principle in

defining inclusivity

65
 “Inclusivity is incorporated with the excellence principle. Our student’s admission will
not be assessed by their ethnicity, race, religion, or poor financial background. Instead,
they will get accepted based on the excellence and academic potentials.”

– Interviewee 3, Universitas Indonesia

From two separate statements above, the idea of inclusivity is tended to be portrayed as the
procedure to access higher education. There are many ways in looking at the access to higher
education, in this study I look at the ‘equity’ of access rather than ‘equality’. The term of equity
is closer to fairness. It will not argue that everyone should be treated equally. For instance,
everyone pays the same tuition, or everyone must use the computer to take the national
examination. However, it would rather argue that it might be fair to treat people in different
ways, particularly because they might have concrete barriers or lack of resources to perform
as other. ‘Equity’ in education means the ‘equality of opportunities’ (Clancy & Goastellec,
2007).

In the case of Universitas Indonesia and Universitas Gunadarma, both seem to be on the same
page at least that higher education access must be available for all regardless of someone’s
physical feature or socioeconomic background. Nevertheless, one points out the importance
of affirmative actions (admission by quota)

“[…] Inclusive is starting from the beginning, especially Gunadarma, we offer many
scholarships in art and sport and any other schemes. Our new study programs have
released scholarship in the form of waving tuition until they graduate.”

– Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

While the other said the importance of merit in providing access to higher education

“[…] inclusivity relies on merit. So regardless of someone’s race, religion, ethnicity.

Regardless you are poor or wealthy, as long as you are academically intelligent and
pass the test of SIMAK, SNMPTN or SBMPTN, you will be freed from any constraint that
prevents you from studying here” – Interviewee 4, Universitas Indonesia

In both cases, presents sufficient minimum of standard that all should have to get the access
into the university (Brighouse & Swift, 2006). In this respect is excellence.

66
 “[…] they should be one the best student in their school […] we select based on their
high school grades, just to ensure that they can survive the academic life until
graduation”- Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

In the literature, there is a debate going around between affirmative actions and meritocratic
basis in looking at the fair access to higher education. McCowan (2016) points out that
affirmative action gives ‘preferential accesses’ to students with a particular characteristic,
such as race, religion, ethnicity or socioeconomic background. Furthermore, Tierney (2007)
argue that affirmative action’s correct the injustice that has happened. While, on the other
hand, merit-basis admission is blind of justice, it is ‘decontextualized’ to the mentioned
preference. However, merit plays as an excellence safe guard of the university, in this respect
using academic competence as a means to distinguish applicants. It may also prevent the
academy from exclusion later on if they fail to access the curriculum (Glazer, 1998).
Subsequently, McCowan (2012) concludes that the most important thing is that to ensure: 1)
Minimum level of academic preparation for the prospective student; 2) There must be
sufficient place for society that desire higher education even with minimum level of
preparation; 3) Access to higher education should not be based on fixed seats, rather it should
be based on criteria.

In Indonesia, the government requires HEIs to “receive and select” 20% applicants from a low-
income family in their student-intake. It is considered as the affirmative action, in a way that
the government give particular attention to students with lack of resources to meet excellent
standards in higher education. However, the fixed number of 20% quota for poor people does
not necessarily make the system just and fair. Considering some of the admission streams is
not accessible for all even if the students have fulfilled the merit. For instance, SNMPTN, it is
based on the academic portfolio assessed by the government. The stream is offered to the
‘best’ student in every school. However, the percentage of student that can be recommended
is based on the school accreditation. Accredited ‘A’ school can purpose 50% best students of
their school; accredited ‘B’ get 30%; accredited ‘C’ get 10%; other accreditations get 5%. Not,
only that it signifies the stratification of quality, but it also expels the right of more smart
students in low accredited school to have equal opportunities to Higher Education. Which
makes in this particular case, the affirmative action does not necessarily prompt justice as
described by Tierney (2007)

67
Susanti (2011) also points out that poor students in Indonesia are facing various constraints
to access higher education. It is harder for them to get into the prime Universities. Education
loan and scholarship which thoroughly covered the study are difficult to obtain. On the top of
that, those students who come from low and middle-income family do not receive the
privilege to get extra course outside of the school-time or enrol to any of the preparation class
of University-entrance Examination, like SBMPTN, SIMAK UI or any other admission streams.

For many of these students, the education expenses mainly tuition fee is a huge barrier to
pursue higher education as well as to complete the degree. Even if the scholarships are
available, yet it is difficult for them to meet the excellence criteria for admissions, simply
because of the lack quality education in their secondary school back home. Moreover,
number of studies have indicated that student’s educational attainment and achievement are
strongly influenced by the socio-economic background of the family (Kahlenberg, 2001;
Lareau, 2003; Tomul & Celik, 2009: Kainuwa & Yusuf, 2013).

The following section will explore the experience of individual university in constructing and
practising inclusivity. As well as what kind of incentive that helps and what problem that
hinders their practice.

Universitas Indonesia

As PTN BH, the case of Universitas Indonesia is unique. The university had long experience
adjusting the government regulation. It went through the changing of status from BLU, to
BHMN in 1999, to BHP in 2009, to PTN BH 2012. Universitas Indonesia has managed their own
financial and academic household ever since a decade ago. Therefore UI is smoother in
following the transition of policy from 2003 to 2009 to 2012. In comparison to ITB, which
created Jalur Khusus to cater the financial gap after the removal of subsidy. Otherwise,
Universitas Hasanuddin that charges IDR 45,000,000 to Golongan V UKT in the subject of
medicine and science (Meanwhile UI costs IDR 7,500,000). It has prompted by the
government block-grants that gradually decreased. Meanwhile, the BOP-B / Biaya
Operasional Pendidikan – Berkeadilan of Universitas Indonesia has never been changed for
the past eight years.

68
Practice of Inclusivity

1. Annual Socialisation of ‘UI admission streams’ to 3T regions (Leading-edge, outer, and left
behind)

2. Blind assessment in the SNMPTN and SIMAK

“UI applies the principle of excellence for all, say when we assess the documents and
test result of the applicant, evaluator check the test without knowing the applicant
personal identity, like name or family status, so forth. We rather change the name to
a unique number.” – Interviewees 4, Universitas Indonesia

3. Establishment of Biaya Operasional-Berkeadilan (BPO-B) and Scholarships. As I explained

in the previous chapter (see Table 12), BPO-B is the form of compensating those who cannot
afford the tuition fee. In 2016, the percentage of group I exceeded the 20%, by so it has
fulfilled the mandate in the policy-text

4. The availability of Non-Regular Courses: D3, S1 Parallel SMA/MK/MA, S1 Parallel

Graduates D3, S1 Graduates Extension D3.

“Non-regular courses, like S1 Parallel and vocational program were established to

support long life learning. It is available for all age cohort, with the same curriculum
and teachers as S1 Regular” – Interviewee 4, Universitas Indonesia

Pressures of PTN BH

As PTN BH University, Universitas Indonesia receives an enormous pressure from the

government. In one hand, they are no longer relying on the preferable block grants (more
private funding rather than state), with a limited financial support from the government, the
university also needs to improve the quality and at the same time become ‘The World Class
University’. In regards to the changing of a financial stream, the government still set the
guidelines of financial spent and revenue of the university. For instance, assets, in PTN BH
University, the land still belong to the state. The utilisation of land will need direct approval
from the government. The university claims it as great pressure, less support and limited
autonomy.

69
In the semi-structured interview that I have conducted, the theme of internationalisation in
Indonesian Higher Education, especially in the notion of ‘World Class University’ and
‘International Ranking Table’, both had frequently mentioned in comparison to the other
themes, in a way that it was explained by the Interviewees even if I have not had offered
specific question about it. These are some of the response

“We struggle in two aspects: the reputation in the World University Rank and the
establishment of more World Class University […]” – DGHE, 2017 (when I asked about
the recent challenge of Indonesian Higher Education)

One of the interviewees put much concern about the conception of autonomy in Indonesian
Higher Education

“There is no clear concept autonomy from the government. Therefore PTN BH

universities created our forum to consolidate problem among PTN BH and
simultaneously construct the meaning of autonomy.”

- Interviewee 3, Universitas Indonesia

Although there is an obvious problem of insufficient resources for the state to fund vast and
massive education’s system, yet “the lack of resources should not have constrained our
reason to provide just distribution in education” (McCowan, 2013)

Case of Universitas Gunadarma

Despite being understood as equal learning opportunities, the other emphasis of inclusivity
also appears in some of the other parts of the interview and document

“Inclusivity is apparently related to the interaction between university and society.”

– Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

Universitas Gunadarma explained that the meaning of inclusivity is also encompassing

outcomes of higher education. According to Inclusivity Model developed by Kyriazopoulou
and Weber (2009), one of the indicators in looking at inclusivity is in the outcomes. Especially
in a participation of students and stakeholder satisfaction.

“Universitas Gunadarma facilitated teacher to do society service by sending them to

the rural areas […] we also cooperate with civic society organisation.”

– Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

70
As the private university that initially founded as the college of computer education, it
currently becomes top higher education with advanced technology. When I asked about how
knowledge plays in inclusivity of higher education, the reply was:

“Our knowledge as scientist and intellectuals should not exclude us from the real
problem of society. Our findings and research should bring benefits to the
community.”-Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

In line with it, higher education brings positional benefit which makes one opportunity in
education relative to the others in the society (Unterhalter & Brighouse, 2007). Another
interesting comment was also posted by Universitas Gunadarma

“the benefit our higher education is not only received by those smart students from the
poor family but also for those who can’t afford higher education at all, for any
reasons.” – Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

According to Human Capital Theory, higher education will not only bring benefit to an
individual but also the community. The rate of returns from higher education, will increase
the productivity, and boost the economic growth of the country. (Becker, 1993)

Practice of Inclusivity

Inclusivity or equal opportunity for Universitas Gunadarma portrayed from the input
(student) to the output (society), and therefore, it is manifested into the range of programs:

1) Scholarship. The university distributes government’s Bidik Misi and also provide other
scholarships (educational grants) framework for the student from low-middle income family

2) Non-regular course. It is intended to support ‘long life learning.’

3) Long distance learning, to help people who reside in the other part of the country to
access the curriculum and learning opportunity.

4) Facilitate a teacher community-service. Every two months, teachers are encouraged to

do community service (teaching) in the rural area

5) Improve the national competitiveness through high-technology education

6) Public education about Technology and Information

7) Supervising small and emerging private institutions in 3T regions (Leading-edge, Outer and
Left-Behind
71
What Hinders and Prompts

As I started to ask the question about higher education autonomy in Indonesia, the university
began to argue that as Private University they did not get affected by the changing of both
political landscape and privatisation of public higher education in UU 12/2012 in the national
level.

“No particular changes happen even after the establishment of regulation to a

legitimate corporate status of a public university (PTN BH) […], as Private University
we handle everything especially finance by ourselves at the very first place.”

- Interviewee 1, Universitas Gunadarma

The university received advice from the government to merger with another university to help
improve branding and quality of new and emerging private universities. But they still have no
intention to do so because of the expensive operational cost and lack of incentives from the
government. Following the establishment of Governmental Regulation No 19/2005 and
Ministerial Regulation No 32/2013, Universitas Gunadarma suggests that the changing of
government regulation in the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Quality Assurance was helping the
university to improve. Universitas Gunadarma is one of the prime private university that has
been granted ‘A’ accreditation of institution from BAN-PT. It is affecting not only the internal
quality control and assurance but also the competitive grants offered by the university.
Regarding funding, the university also received fund from the Asian Development Bank (ADB),
Bank Indonesia (BI), signing Memorandum of Understanding with local government and
corporations.

72
Chapter Four: Conclusion

Neoliberalism driven tendencies in Indonesian Higher Education –particularly in PTN BH- has
prompted the privatisation in higher education. First, it legitimates the ‘autonomy’ of the
public university in the regulatory framework. Second, it alters the funding stream of the
public university to detach from the state by gradually reducing the existing grants. In the
experience of Universitas Indonesia, the privatisation causing more reliance on the private
source rather than the government ones. The university had enough experience of being an
autonomous university in comparison to the rest of PTN BH. Meanwhile, Universitas
Gunadarma claims that the deregulation of government authority in public HEIs is less
significant to the private institution.

However, the establishment of UU 12/12 is signifying the return of the state after being kicked
out in UU BHP. It is an excellent point that the mentioned decree was also stressing the
importance of the state to monitor, evaluate and ensure the quality. About quality, it is also
important when discussing inclusivity because the availability of access does not necessarily
resonate the quality that learner could attain. For the case study of private and public
universities, they both took the same approach to ‘accessibility’ in defining inclusive
education. That inclusivity is more about the ‘equality of opportunities’ rather than ‘equality
of treatment’, as McCowan (2016) argues that accessibility is manifested into the range of
procedure for entering higher education. This procedure, however, relies on merit
assessment. Both universities believe that admission and the affirmative action (say
Scholarship) shall be assessed by excellence rather than entry based on the ‘preferential’
features like skin colour or race, or religion. BOP-B has been adopted in the national
framework as UKT, for Universitas Indonesia, it becomes a tool to distribute equal learning
opportunities given to the student who comes from low-middle-income family or deprived
region. Meanwhile, Universitas Gunadarma put more concern in giving technology and
information training to the society as the inclusivity in output.

As I carry out the research, there is not much discussion about different resources and
privileges of applicants that may prevent them to enrol in merit-based admission. For
instance, the student who enrolled in low quality of secondary education, or student who
cannot pay for the extra course of SIMAK preparation and so forth. It is, therefore, also
important to put attention in the students sufficient level of preparation before enrolling in

73
Higher Education. Finally, I want to put forward two things: First, there must be a clear
national framework and strategy pertaining autonomy of HEIs, so it will not exacerbate the
intention of providing equal opportunities; Second, serious attention needs to be taken
regarding the quality of ‘unaccredited’ higher education and secondary education in
Indonesia, as it might hinder the provision of fair access to higher education.

74
Bibliography

ACDP. (2017, May). Education News Monitoring Service. Retrieved from ACDP Indonesia:
https://acdpindonesia.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/mayoritas-perguruan-tinggi-
terakreditasi-c/

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion.
Abingdon: Routledge.

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, A., & West, M. (2011). Developing equitable education
systems. Abingdon: Routledge.

Amable, B. (2011). Morals and Politics in the Ideology of Neoliberalism. Socio Economic
Review, 9(1), 3-30.

Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of Education Research. London: Falmer Press.

Barnett, R. (1999). The idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Barr, N. (2004). The Economic of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barret, D. (2014). Resourcing Inclusive Education. Measuring Inclusive Education, 75-91.

Barrett, D. (2014). Resourcing Inclusive Education. International Perspective on Inclusive

Education, 3, 75-91.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.

Bauman, Z. (2006). In search of politics. London: Polity.

Becker, G. (1993). Human Capital, A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special
Reference to Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Beiter, K. (2006). The protection of the right to education by international law. Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff.

Berlach, R. G., & Chambers, D. (2011). Inclusivity imperatives and the Australian National
Curriculum. The Educational Forum, (pp. 52-65).

75
Biebricher, T. (2015). Neoliberalism and Democracy. An International Journal of Critical and
Democratic Theory, 255-266.

Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1982). The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings,
Community Abandonmenta and the Dismantling of Basic Industry. New York: Basic.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace. Princeton: Princeton Press.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. London: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 77-101.

Brewis, E. (2016). Inclusive Development in Indonesian Higher Education Reform, post-1997.

ASEASUK Conference. London.

Brighouse, H., & Swift, A. (2006). Equality, Priority and Positional Goods. Chicago University.

Brojonegoro, S. (2012). Higher Education Reform. In S. Irianto (Ed.), Otonomi Perguruan

Tingg: Suatu Keniscayaan. Jakarta: Yayasan Buku Obor Indonesia.

Brown, R. (2011). The march of the market. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.),
The marketisation of higher education and the students as consumer (pp. 12-24).
Oxon: Routledge.

Brown, W. (2003). Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy. Theory and Event, 9-17.

Bulgren, J., Marquis, J., Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Lenz, B., Davis, B., & Grossen, B. (2006).
The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes: Teachers
instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based practices
and standards. A contemporary journal, 39-65.

Canteno, M. A., & Cohen, J. (2012). The Arc of Neoliberalism. Annual Review of Sociology,
17-40.

Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2006). Inclusive school community: why is it so complex?
International Journal of inclusive Education, 323-334.

76
Cestau, D., Epple, D., & Sieg, H. (2017). Admitting students to selective progra,s: Merit,
Profiling and Affirmative Action. Journal of Political Economy, 761-797.

Chipman, L. (2002). Affording Universal Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 126-
142.

Clancy, P., & Goastellec, G. (2007). Exploring Access and Equity in Higher Education: Policy
Performance in Comparative Perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 136-154.

Davies, W. (2014). The limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Severeignity and the Logic of
Competition. SAGE.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Department, I. N. (2002). Students Enrollment in 2002. Jakarta: MoEC.

DGHE. (1999). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia No 60/1999. Retrieved from

http://www.dikti.go.id/Archive2007/pp_61_tahun_1999.htm

DGHE. (2008). Pendanaan Pendidikan.

DGHE. (2014, September 21). Beasiswa dan Bantuan Biaya Pendidikan. Retrieved from
www.dikti.go.id

DGHE. (2017, July 27). Statutes of HEI in Indonesia. Retrieved from Regional Coordination XII
of Private University: http://www.kopertis12.or.id/2012/07/27/seputar-statuta-
perguruan-tinggi-di-indonesia.html

Directorate of Student Affair . (2016). List of Scholarship Donor in Universitas Indonesia.

Directorate of Student Affair.

Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships for enabling inclusive education
in Hongkong. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13-22.

Gates, R. (2003, December). Statement by Texas A&M President Robert M.Gates. Retrieved
from http://www.tamu.edu/president/speeches/031203admissions.html

Geiger, R. (1986). Private sectors in higher education: structure, function, and change in
eight countries. Michigan: Ann Arbor.

77
Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education. Chicago: Haymarkets Books.

Giroux, H. A. (2009). Neoliberalism, Youth, and the Leasing of Higher Education. In D. Hill, &
R. Kumar (Eds.), Global Neoliberalism and Education and its Consequences (p. 31).
New York: Routledge.

Glazer, N. (1998). In defense of preference. The new republic, 18-25.

Graham, L., & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of
inclusion. Education Philosophy and Theory, 247-260.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York:
International Publisher.

Gwartney, J., Hall, J., & Lawson, R. (2010). Economic Freedom of the World: 2010 Annual
Report. Vancouver: Fraiser Inst.

Hanushek, E. A. (2007). The Role of Education Quality in Economic Growth, Interaction of

Cognitive and Unobserved Skills in Earning Generation. Labour Economics, 10.

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haydon, G. (1977). The Right to Education and Compulsory Schooling. Educational

Philoshophy and Theory, 9(1), 1-15.

Hill, D. (2005). Globalization and its educational discontents: Neoliberalisation and its impact
on education worker's pay and conditions. International Studies in Sociology of
Education, 257-288.

Hill, D., & Kumar, R. (2009). Neoliberalism and Its Impact. In Neoliberalism, Education and Its
Consequences (p. 33). New York: Routledge.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1989). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to
School-based Research. London: Routledge.

Human Right Watch. (1998). Academic Freedom in Indonesia. USA: .

Humas UI. (2015-2016). Statistik Mahasiswa UI. Universitas Indonesia.

78
Irvine, A., Lupart, J., Loreman, T., & Mcghie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational leadership to
create authentic inclusive schools: the experience principles in a rural school district.
Exceptionality Education International, 70-88.

Jacob, L. (2013). A vision of equal opportunity in postsecondary education. Fairness in

Access to Higher Education in a Global Perspective: Reconciling Excellence, Efficiency
and Justice.

Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Kainuwa, A., & Yusuf, N. (2013). Influence of Socio-Economic and Educational Background of
Parents on their Children's Education in Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific
and Research Publications, 3(10), 2250-3153.

Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & McGavin, C. (2006). Rethingking the "L" word in Higher Education.
Leadership: ASHE Higher Education Report, 31.

Klein, N. (2008). The Shock Doctrine: The rise disaster capitalism. London: Picador.

KOPERTIS XII. (2017). Perguruan Tinggi Swasta yang Terakreditasi A pada Januari 2017.
BAN-PT. Retrieved from http://www.kopertis12.or.id/2017/01/22/perguruan-tinggi-
indonesia-yang-terakreditasi-a-per-22-januari-2017.html

Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage.

Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (2009). Development of a set of indicators- for inclusive
education in europe. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Larner, W. (2009). Neoliberalism. 374-378.

Lawson, K. (2012). The Concept of Higher Education for All Explored. In G.Roderick, & M.
Stephens, Higher Education for All? (p. 27). New York : Routledge.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

79
Loreman, T., Chambers, D., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. (2014). Conceptualizing and
Measuring Inclusive Education. Measuring Inclusive Education, 3-17.

Margison, S. (2016). The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education: Dynamics
of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems. Higher Education, 413-443.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Marvasti, A. (2011). Three Aspects of Writing Qualitative Research: Practice, Genre and
Audience. London: Sage.

McCowan, T. (2009). Higher Education and the Profit Incentive. In Neoliberalism, Education
and Its Consequences (pp. 55-72). New York: Routledge.

McCowan, T. (2010). reframing the universal right to education. Comparative Education,

509-525.

McCowan, T. (2012). Is There A Universal Right to Higher Education. British Journal of

Education Studies, 111-128.

McCowan, T. (2013). Education as Human Right: Principles for a Universal Entitlement to

Learning.

McCowan, T. (2016). Three Dimensions of Equity Access to Higher Education. Journal of

Comparative and International Education, 645.

McGettingan, A. (2013). The great university gamble: money, market, and the future of
Higher Education. London: Pluto Press.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Milis, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research.
London: Sage.

Ministrial Decree on National Education. (2010). PERMEN RI No 24 Tahun 2010. Retrieved

from http://multisite.itb.ac.id/sa/wp-
content/uploads/sites/44/2016/03/PERMENDIKNAS_24_2010.pdf

80
Mittler, P. (2012). Overcoming inclusion: Social justice through education. Abingdon:
Routledge.

Nizam, N., & Nurdin, M. (2014). Governance Reforms in Higher Education: A Study of
Institutional Autonomy in Education. Paris: UNESCO.

North, D. (1990). Institution, Institutional Change and Economic Performance . Cambridge:

University Press.

Nugroho, H. (2005). The political economy of higher education: the university as an arena
for the struggle for power. (V. Hadiz, & D. Dhakidae, Eds.) Social science and power in
Indonesia, 143-165.

OECD. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2015). Education in Indonesia. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Oketch, M. (2016). Financing Higher Education in Sub-saharan Africa: some reflections and
implication for sustainable development. Higher Education, 525-539.

Pasque, P., & Lechuga, V. (Eds.). (2017). Qualitative Inquiry in Higher Education Organization
and Policy Research. New York: Routledge.

Peraturan Rektor No 07/2017. (2017). Tarif Uang Kuliah Tunggal Mahasiswa Program
Sarjana.

PERMENDIKNAS No 126. (2016). Peraturan Ristekdikti Mengenai Penerimaan Mahasiswa

Baru Program Sarjana pada Perguruan Tinggi. Retrieved from
http://ristekdikti.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Peraturan-Menteri-No.126-
Tahun-2016.pdf

Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights: Cosmopolitan responsibilities and
reforms. Cambridge: Polity.

Pogge, T. (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibility and
Reforms. Cambridge: Polity.

Potts, L. (2000). Interpreting the employment equity in the university setting: the case of the
University of Western Cape. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.

81
PP. (2014). PP No 4/2014 about Higher Education Provision in Indonesia.

PP 55 No 2013. (n.d.). Uang Kuliah Tunggal. Retrieved from

http://www.kopertis12.or.id/2013/05/27/permendikbud-no-55-tahun-2013-
tentang-biaya-kuliah-tunggal-dan-uang-kuliah-tunggal-pada-ptn.html

Ratcliffe, P. (2015). Higher Education, "Race" and the Inclusive Society. Higher Education in a
Global Society: Achieving Diversity, Equity and Excellence, 131-148.

Robbins, R. (2005). Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rosser, A. (2016). Neo-liberalism and the politics of higher education policy in Indonesia.
Comparative Education, 114.

Santiago, I., Karimi, N., & Alicea, Z. (2017). Neoliberalism and higher education: a collective
autoethnography of Brown Women Teaching. Gender and Education, 48-65.

Schwandt, T. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Sen, A. (2005). Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 151-166.

Sewpaul, V. (2015). Neoliberalism. Durban: Elsevier Ltd.

Silerman, D. (2014). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research (Fourth ed.). London: Sage.

Sinclair, M. (2003). Three Futures for University Provision: the social justice market, state
capitalism and private for-profit universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 161-171.

Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt Reinhardt.

Steger, M., & Roy, R. (2010). Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Steier, F. (2003). The Changing Nexus: Tertiary Education Institutions, the Marketplace, and
the State. Higher Education Quarterly, 158-180.

82
Stephens, D. (2009). Qualitative Research International Settings: A practical guide. New
York: Routledge.

Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making Globalization Work. London: Penguin Books.

Strathen, M. (2011). Audit Culture: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethic and the
Academy. Abington: Routledge.

Suardi, M. (2012). Pengantar Pendidikan: Teori dan Aplikasi. Jakarta: PT Indeks.

Suryakusuma, J. (2008, May 04). Teaching and Remembering . Retrieved from Inside
Indonesia: http://www.insideindonesia.org/teaching-and-remembering

Susanti, D. (2011). Privatisation and Marketisation of Higher Education in Indonesia: The

Challenge for Equal Access and Academic Values. Higher Education, 209-2018.

Tierney, W. G. (2007). Merit and Affirmative Action in Education. Urban Education, 385-402.

Tierney, W. G. (2007). Merit and Affirmative Action in Education. Urban Education, 385-402.

Tilaar, H. (2012). Kaleidoskop Pendidikan Nasional: kumpulan karangan. Jakarta: Kompas.

Tomul, E., & Celik, K. (2009). The relationship between the students academic achievement
and their socioeconomic level: cross regional comparison. Denizli: Elsevier.

Tooley, J. (1999). Should the private sector profit from education? The seven virtues of
highly effective markets. Education Notes, 31.

Tooley, J. (2000). Reclaiming Education. London: Cassell.

Torres, C. (2011). Public Universities and the Neoliberal Common Sense. International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 177-197.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century: Vision
and Action. World Conference on Higher Education. Paris.

UNESCO. (2008). Conclusions and Recommendations of the 48th session of the international
conference on education. Geneva: UNESCO.

83
UNESCO. (2008). Inclusive Education: the way of future. Conclusion and recommendations of
the 48th session of the international conference on education (ICE). Geneva.
Retrieved from www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/brazil_NR08.pdf

UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Retrieved from m

http://www.inclusiveeducation-in-
action.org/iea/dokumente/upload/72074_177849e.pdf

UNESCO. (2009). UNESCO Policy Guideliness on inclusive education. Paris: UNESCO IBE.

UNESCO. (2010). Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-
system/inclusive-education

UNGEI. (2010). Equity and Inclusion in Education. Global partnership to achieve Education
for All, 3-17.

UNHAS. (2016, March 15). Penganugerahan PTN BH. Retrieved from Universitas
Hasanuddin: https://unhas.ac.id/page/Keunggulan-Unhas

Universitas Indonesia. (2017). Program Pendidikan . Retrieved from SIMAK Universitas

Indonesia: http://simak.ui.ac.id/program-pendidikan.html

Unterhalter, E., & Brighouse, H. (2007). Distribution of what for social justice in education?
the case of Education for All by 2015. In W. M., & E. Unterhalter, (Eds) Amartya Sen's
Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vincent, A., & Mertz, N. (Eds.). (2011). Seeking an Understanding of School Culture: Using
Theory as a Framework for Observation and Analysis. Theoretical Frameworks in
Qualitative Research, 2-22.

Warnock, M. (1992). Higher Education: the Concept of Autonomy. Oxford Review of

Education, 119-124.

Webometrics. (2017). Indonesian Rangking of Universities. Retrieved from

http://www.webometrics.info/en/asia/indonesia%20

Welch, A. (2007). Blurred Vision? Public and Private Higher Education in Indonesia. Springer
Science and Business Media, 665.

84
Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: the school,
state and the market. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wilkins, D. (1996). Introduction: The context of race. in K.A Appiah & A.Gutmann (Eds.).
Colour conscious: The political morality of race, 3-29.

Wilkinson, S. (2011). Focus Group Research. London : Sage.

World Bank. (2015). Data Bank. Retrieved from

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SE.XPD.TERT.ZS
&country=#

World Bank. (2016). Database of Countries Expenditure on Education. Retrieved from The
World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TERT.ZS?locations=ID-MY-
KH-BN-PH

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publishing.

Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yin, R. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fifth ed.). Sage.

85
89