See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332612937

Is State Control in Higher Education Governance Always Bad?: New Public

Management and the History of Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy

Article in Asian Politics & Policy · April 2019

DOI: 10.1111/aspp.12462

CITATIONS READS

10 222

1 author:

Nurdiana Gaus

26 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Corporate reforms of New Public Management and the professional development of Women academics in Indonesian universities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nurdiana Gaus on 24 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Is State Control in Higher Education
Governance Always Bad?: New Public
Management and the History of
Indonesian Higher Education Reform
Policy

Nurdiana Gaus *

This article examines the oxymoronic issues regarding the role of the state in higher
education under the implementation of New Public Management (NPM) advocated by
neoliberal ideology. According to its proponents, NPM can increase success and productivity
and, thus, foster more democratic governance. In this NPM-driven web of relationships, the
central issue always lies in whether the state should play minimal or maximal roles via a set
of performative measurements. This article analyzes this interaction and relationship
between the state and higher education, taking Indonesia as an object of analysis. It seeks to
contribute to a better understanding of the theory and practice of public administration and
public policy on education, particularly regarding the role of state in a particular context,
like that of Indonesia, in which NPM and the neoliberal agenda are taking root.

Key words: State control, higher education, governance, NPM, neoliberalism

国家控制对高等教育治理只有坏处？印尼高等教育改革政策中的新公共管理:
本文检验了有关新自由主义意识形态所倡导的新公共管理（NPM）背景下，国家在高等教育中所
扮演角色的相关问题，而这些问题看似自相矛盾。在NPM推崇者看来，NPM能扩大成功和生产
力，因此实现更民主的治理。在由NPM驱动的关系网中，核心问题一直是——国家是否应通过
一系列“表述行为的衡量方式”（performative measurements）来发挥最少还是最多的作用。本
文以印度尼西亚为例，分析了国家和高等教育之间的相互影响和关系。本文试图促进理解有关公
共管理的理论和实践，以及有关教育的公共政策，尤其关于国家在NPM和新自由主义议程都存
在的特定情景下所产生的作用。

关键词: 关键词: 高等教育改革, 治理, 新自由主义, 新公共管理, 国家控制

*Nurdiana Gaus is doctor of Higher Education Policy and Management at STIKS

Tamalanrea Makassar. Her main research interests are the impacts of derivative theories
and concepts of neoliberalism on the changing nature of professional identity of academics
during the ongoing process of higher education. She is also interested in the areas of research
in organization, culture, academic culture, politics and gender, politics and philosophy, and
the politics of higher education. She can be contacted at nurdiana.gaus@gmail.com.

DOI: 10.1111/aspp.12462
Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Number 2—Pages 294–313
© 2019 Policy Studies Organization. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      295

¿Es siempre malo el control estatal en la gobernanza de la educación superior? Nueva

administración pública en la política de reforma de la educación superior en Indonesia:
Este artículo examina los problemas oximorónicos relacionados con el papel del estado
en la educación superior, bajo la implementación de la Nueva Gestión Pública (MNP)
defendida por la ideología neoliberal. Según sus defensores, el MNP puede aumentar el
éxito y la productividad y, por lo tanto, fomentar una gobernabilidad más democrática.
En la red de relaciones impulsada por NPM, el problema central siempre radica en si el
estado debe desempeñar un papel mínimo o máximo a través de un conjunto de
“performative measurements” (o medidas realizativas). Este artículo analiza esta
interacción y relación entre el estado y la educación superior, tomando a Indonesia como
un objeto de análisis. Busca contribuir a una mejor comprensión de la teoría y la práctica
de la administración pública y las políticas públicas sobre educación, en particular con
respecto al papel del estado en un contexto particular en el que el MNP y la agenda
neoliberal se arraigan.

Palabras clave: Palabras Clave: reforma de la educación superior, gobernanza, neoliberalismo,

Nueva administración pública, control del Estado

Introduction

H igher education institutions in Indonesia have increasingly been sub-

jected to neoliberal governmentality as Foucault (1982) called it. This can
be seen from the increased desire of the government to control the work of
academics via a set of performative measurements defined by the neoliberal
agenda, which according to Giroux (2002), has been a dangerous ideology that
threatens the advancement of democratic values such as individual autonomy,
equality, and freedom. Giroux’s proposition is grounded in the concern that
neoliberal ideas, in this case New Public Management (NPM), promote busi-
ness principles in higher education through corporate language such as com-
petition, value for money, quality assurance, monitoring, evaluation, audit,
and accountability. These lexicons have, to some extent, changed the terrain
of higher education as a democratic sphere that fosters democratic values, cit-
izenship, and common or public good—the same values that have been pro-
moted by liberalism and democratic theory (Abizadeh, 2008; Giroux, 2002;
Thompson & Miller, 2003).
Incorporating corporate or business principles into higher education and into
the work of academics via performative measurements show the shadow control
by government (Gaus & Hall, 2016) and coercion disguised through policy tech-
nology (Foucault, 1982). These have had corrosive effects on academic freedom
and autonomy, pushing the performance of academic activities toward what
Veblen (1918) called “pecuniary culture” in pursuing scholarship and research.
Despite the corrosive or deleterious effects that these agendas have on higher
education and on the work of academics, they continue to gain prominence in
higher education around the world, including Indonesia. Global competition has
become a reason or trigger for Indonesia to apply performative measurements
of neoliberal agendas in higher institutions to control and improve academic
productivity in research and publication, particularly in reputable international
296      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

journals. While the Indonesian higher education system arose from a patrimo-
nial political system where the strong control of state bureaucracy had predom-
inantly characterized its governance, adopting neoliberal ideology in the higher
education system has become a huge challenge for the government and for
Indonesian academics in particular. This is due to the fact that the transition pe-
riod requires huge structural and cultural shifts from patrimonial norms and be-
liefs to neoliberal practices under the newly democratic political systems (Gaus,
Sultan, & Basri, 2017). Facilitating the transition period and changing preexisting
norms and behaviors of Indonesian academics are arduous undertakings and
need assistance and support from the government as architect and guardian.
This is to prevent the transition period from turning awry, and thus may jeopar-
dizing higher education and academics.
Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising to see there has been the massive
hand of government in the management of higher education and academics in
Indonesia, epitomized in the set of external controls implemented by the New
Public Management (NPM). NPM advocates neoliberal ideologies that push ac-
ademics to behave by corporate norms and culture of audit and accountability,
along with sanctions and rewards, at the expense of professional autonomy and
freedom. This issue has become a subject of central debate in Indonesian insti-
tutions of learning, invoking international literature. Some scholars argue for
restricted state intervention minimizing, if not eliminating, the coercive power
of the state over academics and higher education, and thus, giving them more
space for autonomy and freedom. This notion is developed from the prescrip-
tion of classical liberal economics of Adam Smith (1776), where it is “the invis-
ible hand of market” (Ayers, 2005, p. 3), instead of government intervention,
that automatically drives economic activities. Others, influenced by the idea of
Friedrich A. von Hayek (1944) contend that the state cannot completely stand at
the periphery but should perform enabling roles to establish an infrastructure
of law and regulations to ensure the workings of economic activities (Ayers,
2005).
When these two ideas entering higher education governance, tensions and con-
testations arise on how the state should position itself in the web of relationships—
whether to have minimal or maximum roles. Minimal state roles are preferred since
they enable corporate principles and promote democratic governance via the mod-
ern bureaucratic model (Thompson & Miller, 2003). However, it has been found that
minimal or limited state cannot promote democratic governance at all (Thompson
& Miller, 2003). Drechsler (2005) argues that in the era of technological advancement
where economic, political, and societal issues have become heightened and com-
plex, active and capable state and administrative structures are strongly needed. He
conceptualized this within “a neo-Weberian State” (Drechsler, 2005).
Many scholars have studied how NPM, with its market principles, have im-
pacted the changing relationship between government and higher education. This
is evident with the increasingly decentralized authority granted to academics ac-
companied by an increasingly centralized control by governments seeking to steer
higher education (Ferlie, Musselin, & Andresani, 2008; Hood, 1991; Kickert, 1997).
The idea of NPM is not only confined to Western countries. It has also taken hold
in several Asian countries. Mok (2003) revealed how the face of higher education
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      297

institutions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China, has shifted toward mar-
ket ideologies, and how the role of the State is becoming increasingly dominant in
shaping and steering higher education institutions during the restructuring process.
Similarly, New Public Management has inundated Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE), including former communist Eastern Europe. However, considering the
transitional periods from communist, closed, and totalitarianism societies into
democratic and open societies that some of these countries are encountering, the
nuances of reforms in the region have been characterized by a stringent empha-
sis on the capacity and the legitimacy of the State to become an architect, fostering
the restructuring and development of higher education. This approach or model
of reform has been referred to as the neo-Weberian state, a model developed in
Europe (Dunn & Miller, 2007), wherein the role of the State is viewed as an assist-
ing and protecting agent from external environment threats that can hamper the
achievement of the goals of the reform (Pollit, Thiel, & Homburg, 2007).
This article aims to bridge this conundrum in public administration theory and
practice, taking higher education reforms in Indonesia as an object of analysis. It
focuses on the questions of how higher education in Indonesia has changed in
terms of its roles and functions in three different regimes, and how the relation-
ship with the state has also changed largely because of the state involvement in the
governance of higher education via its policy of “steering at distance.” It explores
the context in which NPM principles of market behavior can be implemented.
This article presents an analyses of the interaction and relationship of the state
with higher education in Indonesia as seen in the attempts of the Indonesian
government to stimulate and change preexisting patrimonial norms and beliefs
as prerequisite to implement market-driven behaviors as dictated by the neolib-
eral ideology of NPM. This would then contribute to a better understanding of
theory and practice in Public Administration and Public Policy, particularly re-
garding the role of state in a particular context, like Indonesia and other contexts
similar to Indonesia’s, in which neoliberal agendas are taking root. In addition,
this article seeks to contribute to policymaking processes by evaluating the pre-
vious political system that has shaped and institutionalized the current values,
norms, and behavior of the people or citizens.
The analysis opens with the history, role, and functions of the higher educa-
tion system in Indonesia across three different regimes. It is important to capture
how Indonesian higher education governance has developed and changed from
one regime to another, through different political systems and to pinpoint the
role and the relationship of the state with higher education institutions during
these regimes. Thus, we can differentiate how the nascent path of NPM princi-
ples led to a more stringent path in higher education governance, precipitating
the growth of neoliberal ideology in higher education in Indonesia.

New Public Management and the Neo-Weberian State

This section is largely focused on the changing role of the state—or “the
changing art of government” as called by Ball (2018)—in relation to market prin-
ciples as underlying assumptions of NPM and how this changing art of govern-
ment has changed the relationship between state and higher education.
NPM is one of the derivative ideas, theories, and concepts of neoliberal ideol-
ogy. It is driven by the neoliberal dreams of free market economy and by homo
298      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

economicus (Lorenz, 2012, p. 601). It emphasizes the language of business effi-

ciency, cost-effectiveness, quality assurance, and accountability (Gaus & Hall,
2016; Lorenz, 2012), which are transferred to the public sector, including higher
education, to help it run in a more efficient, effective, and cost-effective manner. It
neglects the fact that higher education is different from other public institutions in
that it has a certain and distinctive totem pole, vested on the logics of autonomy, ac-
ademic freedom, and professionalism. These logics are at odds with the logic of the
market, espoused by NPM, creating tension and contestation among academics.
The “New” added to this construct suggests that it is an extension and re-
finement of “Old Public Administration” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007), but its
preeminent principles are also vested in market mechanisms and classical eco-
nomic theories, such as public choice theory, transaction cost theory (TCT), and
agency theory (AT) or neoliberal theories of institutional redesign. (Olssen &
Peters, 2005; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007). While the two use the same principles
and conceptual framework, they have different perceptions on citizenship, pub-
lic service, and the state. NPM perceives these three issues through the lens of
economics rather than the frame of law and politics (Lorenz, 2012).
This situation has created a new web of relationships and arrangements
among organizations as indicated by the prescribed economic roles. Citizens are
now seen as customers who have self-interest, autonomy, and capacity to pro-
duce maximum profit. Thus, the state has to develop and provide a conducive
environment to facilitate this end via the development and enactment of laws,
regulations, and infrastructure to ensure the continued economic activities of
the citizens. This is the enabling function of the state as embraced by neoliberal
ideology. With NPM, this function changes to the steering mode, imitating the
mode of reinventing government as developed by Osborne and Gaebler (1992).
The mode, as Foucault (1982) termed it, is known as neoliberal governmentality.
This is in parallel with the way NPM recommends the role of the state in the
arrangement of public services, the notion of the guiding state dedicated to serv-
ing customer interest rather than serving democratic values. Such a purpose
requires public services to be accountable, leading to the unprecedented recog-
nition of the right of surveillance by the state as a principal that delegates tasks
to agents, in this case administrators in public service. This is in line with the
principal–agent theory, where the principal, constrained by the power and dis-
cretion to monitor the work of an agent in accomplishing the tasks given, sets up
a measurement tool to ensure there are no fraudulent actions committed while
getting the job done. A set of quantitative measurements framed within perfor-
mance indicators is introduced to measure the productivity and the effectiveness
of the work of agents. Therefore, public services do need to be held accountable
via what is called “audit culture” (Shore & Wright, 1999).
When these principles are introduced in higher education, they give rise to the
emergence of the a new academic and higher education modality—i.e., changing
traditional roles to corporate roles where scholarly activities are pursued for in-
strumental ends, leading to the practices such as (Olssen & Peters, 2005, p. 329):
1 Hard managerialism; contractual specification between principal–agent.
2 Managers; line management; cost centers
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      299

3 Maximization of output; financial profits; efficiency, massification;

privatization
4 Competitiveness; hierarchies; workloads are indexed to market
5 Audit; monitoring; consumer–managerial; performance indicators; output-
based (ex-post)
6 Research being externally funded; separated from teaching; controlled by
government or external agents
In the higher education sector, the introduction of these practices has been
problematic, triggering much tension and contestation on whether the state
should influence the governance of higher education since it is an intellectual
community markedly characterized by academic freedom and autonomy. The
“one best way” and “for all seasons” principles (Hood, 1991) in managing orga-
nizations is laden in the tenet of NPM, causing contestation in that it overrides
other contexts or places in which NPM is implemented (Pollit & Bouckaert, 2004).
From scholars like Pollit and Bouckaert (2004), a counter model of NPM was
developed into what is now known as the “Neo-Weberian State.” It is a model of
governing that foregrounds the strong capacity of the state to help agents against
existing external threats; in the context of higher education reform in Indonesia,
such a model of governing mingles with the NPM principles. The need for the
state to intervene in the change process in Indonesian higher education is recog-
nized because Indonesia’s previous patrimonial political system was strongly
rooted in higher education. The values and norms of this system stand largely
in contrast with those of NPM. Thus, the state is required to become an architect
and assist in the transformation of Indonesian academics from old patrimonial
values, norms, and behaviors to new quasi-market values, norms, and behaviors
(Gaus & Hall, 2015a; Gaus, Muhammad, & Sultan, 2017).
The neo-Weberian state entails Weberian concepts of bureaucracy with addi-
tional new elements such as the following (Pollit & Bouckaert, 2004).
Weberian elements
• Reaffirmation of the state as the main facilitator of solutions to the new prob-
lems of globalization, technological change, shifting demographics, and en-
vironmental threat;
• Reaffirmation of the role of representative democracy (central, regional, and
local) as the legitimating elements within the state apparatus;
• Reaffirmation of the role of administrative law suitably modernized in
preserving the basic principles pertaining to the citizen–state relationship,
including equality before the law, legal security, and the availability of spe-
cialized legal scrutiny of state actions;
• Preservation of the idea of a public service with a distinctive status, culture,
and terms and conditions.
New elements
• Shift from an internal orientation toward bureaucratic rules to an external
orientation toward meeting citizens’ needs and wishes. The primary route to
300      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

achieving this is not the employment of market mechanisms (although they

may occasionally come in handy) but the creation of a professional culture of
quality and service.
• Supplementation (not replacement) of the role of representative democracy
by a range of devices for consultation with, and the direct representation
of, citizens’ views (this aspect being more visible in the northern European
states and Germany at the local level than in Belgium, France, or Italy).
• Modernizing the relevant laws in the management of resources within
government to encourage greater orientation on the achievement of results
rather than merely following procedure. This is expressed partly in the shift
from ex ante to ex post controls, without completely abandoning the former.
• A professionalization of the public service so that the bureaucrat becomes
not simply an expert in the law relevant to his or her sphere of activity but
also a professional manager, oriented toward meeting the needs of his or her
citizens/users.
In the context of Indonesia, the question is “Is involvement by government or
the state in higher education governance really bad?”. This article explores this
conundrum in Indonesian higher education reforms from past to present.

Reforms in Higher Education in Indonesia

A Brief History
Higher education institutions in Indonesia were introduced by the Dutch colo-
nizers in order to provide professionals to work in the colonial government. Such
institutions, however, were exclusive to aristocratic families of native Indonesian
descent, leading to the construction of elitism and a closed society (Tajuddin, 2007).
The provision of higher education to produce professionals had signaled the na-
scent emergence of the economic and market-driven purpose of higher education
institutions in Indonesia, paved by the colonialist government (Sulistyono, 2007).
Due to strong social stratification which very much favored aristocratic fam-
ilies during the colonial period, there were only about 200 students from elite
society enrolled in higher education institutions (Wicaksono & Friawan, 2011).
After gaining independence from Dutch colonialists, the massification of higher
education in Indonesia caused by the growth of student enrolments—triggered
by demographic changes and economic growth from the oil boom in the 1970s
to the 1990s—was breathtaking. Higher education institutions in Indonesia
expanded at a significant rate, from just one to 120 state universities and 3000
private universities across Indonesian archipelago from 1945 to the present day
with the total number of students enrolled in both state and private higher edu-
cation reaching 3.5 million (Wicaksono & Friawan, 2011).
Higher education in Indonesia has gone through transformations in its role and
purpose which can be discerned and understood in three distinctive periods of re-
gimes. These regimes are the following: the Old Order regime during the Soekarno
era, the New Order regime during the Soeharto era, and the Reformation era
under several presidents: B.J. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarno
Putri, Soesilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and incumbent Joko Widodo. In these three
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      301

regimes, the importance of higher education institutions has been aligned with
the conditions and interests of the leaders or elected presidents.

The Old Order Regime (1945–1965)

In Soekarno’s Old Order regime, the main purpose of higher education was
closely related to his political agenda wherein the values of an economically
independent, politically sovereign, and nationally culture-driven nation were
interwoven and enforced (Tajuddin, 2007). This was meant to foreground the
significance of developing Indonesia without relying on Western capital, thus
paving a concrete ground for Indonesia to formulate its own boundaries in
devising its economic reflation, political, and educational policies. This era was
clearly marked by opposition to Western economic assistance, thus limiting
international ties to a one-axis relationship: the Jakarta–Peking axis.
Under this Old Order regime’s political purpose, the development of human
resources mainly focused on kindling nationalism among the young generation,
and building the national character in accordance with national cultural char-
acteristics (Widohariadi & Permono, 1983). Human capital were badly needed
to foster the development of Indonesia socially, culturally, politically, and eco-
nomically as a country that had successfully gained its independence from the
imperialists. Additionally, prolonged colonization had resulted in the ruination,
demoralization, and destitution of Indonesian people’s lives (Tajuddin, 2007;
Widohariadi & Permono, 1983). Here, the important role of higher education
was positioned as a symbol of the unity of nation and a pioneer in improving the
ruined condition of people.

The New Order Regime (1966–1998)

Under the New Order regime, the purpose and role of higher education shifted.
Higher education institutions in this era had dual roles and functions. First, they
became likewise the political vehicle for government to sustain its rule (Altbach,
2001). Second, they were set as sites for the production of knowledge and the devel-
opment of skilled human resources needed for the development of Indonesia in the
midst of the powerful influence of capitalist ideologies (Sulistyono, 2007). Altbach
(2001) further argued that politicization led to attacks on academic freedom and au-
tonomy which serve as the very core of the mission of universities. This had serious
implications for higher education since academic freedom is an essential element of
teaching and research (Altbach, 2001; Henkel, 2005; Kogan & Hanney, 2000).
The diminution of academic freedom and autonomy was further reinforced
when academics were given the status of civil servants. Academics were
regarded as part of the “State apparatus” and were tasked to serve the interest
of the State, very much the same as other public servants. This was a means to
protect and ensure the longevity of the ruling elite by gaining political support
from the academic community. This, higher education institutions also became
engaged with the bureaucratic polity of the ruling elite (Sulistyono, 2007).
The strong hand of the government gripped higher education institutions
by placing them under the control of the Ministry of Education and Culture.
Academics were regulated and controlled by the government through its arm—
the Directorate General of Higher Education (Sulistyono, 2007). Centralization
led to a prolonged curtailment or even the negation of academic freedom and
302      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

autonomy. This curtailment was itself a consequence of past events triggered

by students protesting policies issued by the government during the 1970s, the
early part of the New Order regime in the 1970s. Government used military
force to confine and curb academic freedom and autonomy, ostensibly to create
stability—“politics of order”—needed for the development of Indonesia. When
this policy was effected, many prominent Indonesian academics and politicians
ended up in jail (Altbach, 2001). Since then, the activities of members of the aca-
deme in Indonesian universities have become obscure and buried away.
Further constraints on academic freedom included the policy of “normaliza-
tion of campus life” and the establishment of a “campus coordinating body”
(Beerkens, 2008). Under this policy, all student activities came under the control
of the government, with all campus-based activities under supervision of uni-
versity rectors. Student political expression was banned (Beerkens, 2008).
The constraints on academic freedom culminated in the 1980s, when all aca-
demic institutions were subjected to security surveillance. State intelligence per-
sonnel were present in campuses, monitoring campus activities. The other forms
of repression of academic activities included pressures to conform with academic
promotions decisions, denial of travel privileges to critical professors, monitoring
of academic seminars and press, and book censorships (Beerkens, 2008).
In a study by the World Bank (2000), it was argued that the absence of au-
tonomy and the sense of community within higher education communities can
result in the lack of accountability and responsibility to society. This situation
had adverse impacts on higher education in Indonesia in terms of quality and
efficiency, as argued by Wicaksono and Friawan (2011).

The poor quality of higher education can be seen from the low levels of
qualification of the teaching staff, inadequate laboratory facilities (es-
pecially in the private HEIs) and limited library holdings. Meanwhile,
low efficiency is best demonstrated by the extended enrolment period
in which a typical undergraduate—in both public and private HEIs—
spends about five to six years completing their studies instead of the
four years required. Low internal efficiency can also be seen from the
low student–teacher ratios of about 12:1, limited utilization of physical
space, and the low number of student/staff contact hours. (p. 171)

The situation explained above had made higher education in Indonesia centrally
managed and academic issues thus became the concern of government. As a conse-
quence, academics did not enjoy the discretion to define and determine the bound-
aries of their community and to construct their identities. This situation, coupled
with the lack of accountability and innovation, made it extremely difficult for higher
education in Indonesia to practice its mission as a moral force, (Sulistyono, 2007).
In the meantime, the authority of higher education institutions to manage
collective resources was negated as these were managed directly by the gov-
ernment. Funding heavily relied on the government’s subsidy, at the expense
of academic autonomy and freedom. This relationship where the government
was the sole financier of higher education institutions led to sacrificing academic
autonomy and freedom; it is less clear if it helped promote the exchange of
expertise, skills, and professionalism of academics (Clarke & Newman, 1997).
Trust linking higher education to the society in which it resides was scarcely
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      303

found within this sort of relationship, going against the assertion by Trow (1996)
that trust is one of the three fundamental ways that connects higher education
with its supporting societies.
It is evident from this practice that the rational bureaucracy of Weber embed-
ded in the existing patrimonial systems of domination was visible in the manage-
ment of higher education institutions in Indonesia. From the rational bureaucracy
of Weber, universities were seen as machines of the State, which were run with
a clear hierarchy and a predefined job description but through impersonal re-
lationships; moreover, there was no appreciation for academic professionalism
and their mastery of specialist knowledge and theory (Burnes, 1996; Clarke &
Newman, 1997; Lorenz, 2012; Roberts & Donahue, 2000). The mechanistic nature
of classical theory or Taylorism in scientific management (Burnes, 1996; Hatch,
1997) was widely applied through its view of human nature conceptualized in a
mechanical sense, disregarding the nature of humans as emotional rather than
economic beings (Burnes, 1996; Hatch, 1997). In short, the management of higher
education in this era was largely inward-looking rather than outward-looking,
emphasized in the compliance with and achievement of rules and procedures.
Burnes (1996) confirmed that a consequence of this practice is constraint on the
ability of organizations to rapidly and adeptly adapt to a changing environment,
as this system can only be applied to a placid or a stable environment and within
small-scale organizations (Burnes, 1996; Hatch, 1997). Referring to this suppo-
sition, Indonesian universities have a low ability to effectively adapt to a fast
changing environment. This fact was seen as the weaknesses of the traditional
bureaucracy where the orientation was mainly focused on compliance with in-
ternal rules and procedures, rather than on the external orientation of producing
results or outcomes (Burnes, 1996; Hatch, 1997).
Clearly, the bureaucracy adopted to manage and organize the work of aca-
demics was a derailment of the true Weberian rational bureaucracy which pro-
moted an effective, efficient, and fair treatment of employees in organizations.
The most significant aspects of the Weberian rational bureaucracy that were ab-
sent in Indonesian bureaucracy were impersonality and selectivity in the process
of recruitment, division of labor, and promotions of employees (Du Gay, 2000).
Throughout the course of Indonesian higher education, there had not been any
spaces granted to it to determine its boundaries. The role of the government with
its patrimonialistic values had been always present in regulating and managing
higher education institutions in Indonesia. Such a practice continues to persist
even today—the reformation and democratic era—even though this practice has
been challenged.

Indonesian Higher Education in the Reformation Era of Democratic

Society (1998–Now)
This turbulent era of the democratic movement reverberated in all parts
of Indonesia in 1998 and gave rise to the important question of reform in the
Indonesian higher education system. This reform was also a response to the fast
changing environment in higher education sectors around the globe, because of
the impact of globalization and neoliberalism, coupled with the liberalization of
education under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO determined
304      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

that the higher education sector was one of the important tradable and commod-
ified services. Indonesia, a member of the WTO, ratified this scheme, leading
to a dilemma encountered by most Indonesian universities which were seem-
ingly ill-prepared to compete internationally. The predicament was the result of
the long-standing perfunctory attention paid by the Indonesian government to
quality standards in running universities, and the politicization of universities
by the government (Brodjonegoro, 2002).
Realizing the predicament faced by Indonesian universities, many parties
voiced out the need to reform the system in order to survive global competition.
The theme of academic freedom was a major area where change was promoted.
This meant that Indonesian universities had to step away from government in-
tervention and begin working toward self-determination and self-governance.
As a rejoinder, government then issued a liberal policy of the autonomization of
higher education through the endowment of the BHMN (Badan Hukum Milik
Negara) status (the state-owned legal institutions) which was enacted through
the Higher Education Act 1999 (and later became a controversial issue).
The Higher Education Act of 1999 was enacted to transform the status of
higher education institutions into so-called “legal entities” (Badan Hukum,
BHP). Within this status, the running and provision of higher education would
be uniformly carried out; schools would henceforth adopt a for-profit orienta-
tion (liberalization and commercialization); and take no financial subsidy from
government. A pilot project to implement this was carried out through the en-
dowment of campus autonomy or BHMN status to five universities in Java in
2000.
The implementation of campus autonomy in Indonesian state universities
which was implemented in 2000 has become an oxymoron. It is a contentious
issue which has polarized educationalists into two different factions. For some,
they believed that only with academic freedom might Indonesian state univer-
sities develop and advance their standards in learning and teaching. Thus, they
are able to keep pace with and position themselves at par with other interna-
tional higher institutions. In materializing this ideal, the reduction or the elimi-
nation of the State’s intervention through the introduction of campus autonomy
is regarded as the most appropriate means (Brodjonegoro, 2002; Irianto, 2012).
For others, the introduction of campus autonomy may have led to the liberal-
ization and commercialization of higher education institutions, which in turn
sparked a far-reaching impact on the high imposition of tuition fees on students
(Brodjonegoro, 2002; Irianto, 2012).
The frenzied debate on the pros and cons regarding the compliance with
campus autonomy in Indonesian higher education institutions was basically
grounded on the following premises: that the adoption of managerial models
will prevent students from low-income families from accessing quality higher
education institutions; that government will retreat from supporting and sub-
sidizing public education; that there will be intervention of foreign capitals in
education, such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO; and that education
were to be conducted under neoliberal agendas (Sulistyono, 2007).
The implementation of campus autonomy in Indonesia has meant that the
role of the government as the main financier for higher education institutions
was eliminated and devolved to the higher education institutions (Sulistyono,
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      305

2007). This situation had led universities to seek their own funding through sev-
eral schemes or programs (Sulistyono, 2007). One of the schemes was to increase
tuition fees to even double the former amounts, stirring fierce debate among
educationalists as it may have potentially become a hindrance for students from
low-income families to enter quality universities (Sulistyono, 2007). Thus, this
can violate Article (33) clause (1) of the Indonesian Act (UUD 45) which says that
all citizens are entitled to quality and equal access to education. The increase
in tuition fees has come to be seen as favoring students from rich families who
can afford to pay (Lynch, 2006). As a result, universities tended to target them
through an offer of “special passage” to prestigious and popular faculties or dis-
ciplines (Jalur Khusus), provided that they could afford to pay the fee (Susanti,
2010). Thus, there had been a propensity to commercialize the universities as
tradable services that could only be enjoyed by middle- to high-income class
students (Susanti, 2010).
From this situation, students from low-income families became marginalized
or disadvantaged in accessing higher education compared to students from
high-income families. Nevertheless, the imposition of high tuition fees could
benefit low-income family students. The scheme called “cross subsidy” (subsidi
silang) where high-income family students who enrolled into higher education
institutions through “special passage” would pay high tuition fees was to be-
come the source of subsidies for low-income family students. This scheme must
be implemented in each BHMN university, which would then allocate 20% of
their quota for low-income family students (Susanti, 2010; Wicaksono & Friawan,
2011).
However, many educationalists doubted that this scheme would work. They
argued that universities in Indonesia will continue to become elite institu-
tions, populated by the more advantaged students from high-income families.
Moreover, there was no guarantee of proportional implementation of the 20%
quota for low-income students (Sukemi, 2012).
Those who positioned themselves as dissidents appealed to the Court of
Constitution for judicial review in the implementation of the BHMN, and as a
result, the Court of Constitution annulled the BHMN. Thus, the government of
Indonesia called for the assigned BHMN universities to revert to their previous
status as public services. As a substitute for the Higher Education Act of 1999, a
new Act of 2012 was enacted and has become the legal basis of higher education
in Indonesia.
The narration above demonstrates that a strong State is needed to back up the
shift from the existing patrimonial systems of higher education toward neolib-
eral ideology of markets. This is due to the fact that Indonesia’s fundamental
socioeconomic, political, and cultural conditions were still weak and fragile. To
leave higher education institutions to manage on their own could be risky since
the managerial skills of the human resources available are still underdeveloped.
Here, the State is required to play its architect role to promote, guide, and regulate
a new mechanism for the structural shift, transforming the roles of academics to
the quasi-market norms advocated by NPM as a precondition to implement the
free market principles of neoliberalism. Moreover, the role of the State is significant
in protecting higher education in Indonesia from adverse external influences
306      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

that may result from the powerful influx of globalization, neoliberalism, and
of international organizations, such as the IMF and the World Bank. Therefore,
the maintenance of representative democracy (central, regional, and local) as the
legitimating elements within the state apparatus, and the maintenance of the
role of administrative laws, is highly important (Dunn & Miller, 2007; Ferlie et
al., 2008; Pollit & Bouckaert, 2004). The enactment of the Higher Education Act
of 2012 has been seen as the manifestation of the State’s legal responsibility to
assist higher education institutions to develop and advance amidst increasing
external threats.
In this way, “the State has assumed its monopoly on power, force, and coer-
cion on one side, and its focus on the public good” on the other (Drechsler, 2009,
p. 9). One manifestation of this has been the engagement of schemes to punish
and reward academics, acting both as the behavioral stimuli and power impo-
sition. Both rewards and punishment are required to have an effective applica-
tion of a policy that will gain compliance and avoid resistance from academics
(Kickert, 1991; Sabatier, 1986). To effectively implement and achieve the goals of
the government-driven policy, the formulation and implementation process of
the policy has used a top-down approach (Sabatier, 1986; Yanow, 1987), focused
on the identification of reciprocal effects between change processes and individ-
ual behavior which can affect the policy implementation. Trowler (1998) called
this mutual adaptation.
Nevertheless, the enactment of this new Act has yet to satisfy educationalists
of both factions, notably from those supporting the liberalization of higher ed-
ucation institutions. In this Act, there is still the notion that campus autonomy
is held by universities, but its implementation will be controlled and guided
by the government. Those wishing to obtain “autonomy” under the status of
the BHMN will be processed and determined by the government (The HE Act,
2012). The combination of minimizing and reaffirming the role of the govern-
ment is evident.
To provide a better understanding of the reforms taking place in this period,
this article integrates New Public Management and the neo-Weberian agendas to
look at how the political technology and “steering at a distance,” embedded in behav-
ioral stimuli through incentives and disincentives, are exercised by Indonesian
government toward its goal of accelerating the change processes in Indonesian
universities. It integrates analyzing the reform agendas with examining the shift
of internal governance and accountability. The latter will be analyzed in terms
of performative measurements, such as performance indicators, procedures of
evaluation, research funding schemes, and quality assurance and accreditation.

The Rise of Neoliberal Governance and of State Control

At present, the higher education institutions in Indonesia are regulated under
a new law on education (Law no. 12/2012). This new law constitutes a revision of
the previous Higher Education Act no. 9/2009 which endowed more autonomy
to Indonesian universities to regulate and manage their own institutions. Within
this new Act of Higher Education, the roles and functions of higher education
have been reshaped into a market-driven orientation which has demanded that
universities transform and behave more as corporations and organizations.
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      307

The enactment of this law has been very much influenced by the desire of the
government to improve the quality of human resources needed for Indonesia’s
economic development. By doing so, the economization of higher education in-
stitutions has firmly taken root. The preamble of this Act says “that the provision
of higher education in Indonesia is intended to increase the nation’s competitive-
ness in the globalized world in all aspects of life by producing skilled human re-
sources mastering knowledge and technology” (The HE Acts, 2012; The Renstra
DIKTI 2012).
The situation depicted above is discussed in “Human Capital Theory.” Human
capital is defined as “the stock of knowledge and skills possessed by the labor
force that increases its productivity” (Engel, 2000, cited in Ayers, 2005, p. 4). In
this theory, higher education is ultimately seen as a place to create human capital
for economic growth to increase the economic competitiveness of Indonesia. As
a result, higher education finance gained from taxpayers is no longer viewed
as an expenditure but as a strategic economic investment instead (Ayers, 2005).
This idea has been persistently echoed by the Indonesian government (the
President and the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education or
RISTEK DIKTI1) by calling for higher education institutions to closely and in-
tensively work with industries in order to produce research findings that can be
used directly by industries, thus becoming more innovative and entrepreneurial.
Here, the triple helix (state–higher education–industry) relationship has been
strongly prescribed. This is followed by strengthening the study programs and
field of studies that have direct economic contributions which, in the end, can
obtain a higher return on investments (Ayers, 2005). The effect has been the
emergence of favored disciplines—mostly in the hard sciences–compared to soft
sciences such as arts and humanities (Giroux, 2002). A further effect of this fa-
voritism is in the allocation of a higher proportion of research grants and schol-
arships for the hard sciences. The 2018 research grant allocation defined by the
RISTEK DIKTI gives 70%–80% of research funds for the hard sciences and 20%–
30% for the soft sciences (RISTEK DIKTI, 2018).
In order for higher education in Indonesia to be more productive, innovative,
and competitive and to contribute to the economic growth as defined by the
government, a new modality of managing academics and the institution is ap-
plied—NPM. With NPM principles, higher education in Indonesia is regulated
via controlling mechanisms in policy technology and “steering at a distance,”
disguised in the form of auditing and monitoring as forms of accountability,
particularly to measure productivity in research and international publication.
These forms of accountability are characterized by numerical or quantitative
measurement, emphasizing tangible measures and outcomes. Such practices
have given rise to the erosion and degradation of autonomy and trust as a basic
norm governing academics and higher education. The quantitative measure-
ments have changed the professional-bureaucratic form of accountability (ex
ante) into a managerial form of accountability (ex post).
In the set of quantitative measurements, Indonesian academics are measured
largely on their productivity and work performance that will be displayed in
the Indonesian platform called SINTA (Science Index and Technology), covering
mainly research and publication. This database has two functions: (i) to monitor,
308      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

evaluate, and rank the performance of academics in research and publication,

and (ii) to reward and punish academics. Rewards and punishment for being
productive and unproductive in research and publication are applied to asso-
ciate professors (lektor kepala) and professors. If these groups of academics fail
to comply or meet the targets set by government, their fringe benefits will be
terminated. This way of conduct has, to some extent, given rise to the dichotomy
of loser and winner academics, strengthening the “publish or perish” notion.
With NPM as the guiding principle in higher education in Indonesia, the way
Indonesian academics conduct their scholarly activities has changed, and this
has triggered various reactions from academics. Research conducted by Gaus
and Hall (2015a) demonstrated that there were market-instrumental bases of
identity preoccupying Indonesian academics in the pursuit of knowledge and
scholarships, leading to the rise of “academic capitalism” (Slaughter and Leslie,
as cited in Gaus & Hall, 2015a, 2016). While some academics agreed with this,
there were also many academics who disagreed, creating patterns of resistance
in the form of what James Scott (1985) called “infrapolitics resistance” (Gaus &
Hall, 2015b). The Indonesian government has also pursued a massive and con-
sistent effort to apply NPM to ensure the accountability, transparency, and qual-
ity assurance in the provision of higher education in Indonesia.
In addition to the economization of higher education as indicated in the HE
Act 2012, the tenets of the neo-Weberian state can be traced as well. A strong state
is there, taking position as a primary agent which has full authority in the ar-
rangement, planning, and assessment of the provision of higher education. The
fact that the government does act as a controlling agent in its relationship with
the academics and the higher education institutions has been confirmed further
in the Higher Education Act of 2012. In this document, there is a statement which
says that the government is the actor who is fully responsible for the provision
of higher education. In this way, the responsibility conferred to the government
has meant that it is entitled to arrange, plan, supervise, monitor, and evaluate the
activities of academics in the provision of higher education.

The responsibilities of the Minister of Education in the provision of

higher education encompasses aspects of the arrangement, planning,
supervision, monitoring, and evaluation coupled with aspects of the de-
velopment and coordination. (article 7:2)

The role of the government as provided above needs to be concretized in order

to give a strong legal foundation to execute the provision of higher education, as
the document said:

So as to guarantee the provision of higher education, it needs an ar-

rangement as a foundation and a legal assurance. (HE Act Preamble
section)

To achieve these goals, the government through the Directorate General of

Higher Education (the DGHE), designed and formulated a strategic plan—
Renstra DIKTI 2010-2014—to provide the foundation for the implementation of
the reform initiated by the DGHE. The most important issue in the strategic
plan is the attempt to manage the culture of academic communities through the
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      309

reconstruction and reshaping of the identity of Indonesian universities. This was

to be achieved by devolving authority to local universities to manage their own
institutions. In this way, the role of the DGHE as the representative of the gov-
ernment is reshaped from controllers to facilitators. The latter are closely related
to the catalytic function of government through its rowing capacity to create and
provide a conducive environment needed for creativity, high commitment, and
innovation to occur. This enabling function is one of the characteristics of neo-
liberal governmentality (Foucault, 1982) wherein the government is perceived as
part of the governed or the conduct of conduct. The conduct of conduct reflects
the way to govern others (subjectification) and to govern one’s self (subjectiva-
tion). In this scenario, the objects of the governance are seen as active people
who are self-governing in certain ways. Thus, the role of government is to act
on behalf of the self-government (Simons & Masschelein, 2006). By doing so, the
government is committed to grant autonomy as widely as possible to Indonesian
universities which was mandated as well in the Higher Education Act of 2012.
The process of reshaping and retrenching the role of the governments is con-
ceptualized as decentralization and autonomization, and these have changed the
sociopolitical map of Indonesia from centralist to participative and regionalist.
In this context, higher education is expected to become a bridge to unite the
nation and to guard the process of democratization through the process of com-
munity learning (Renstra DIKTI 2012, p. 2). Higher education is also expected to
become a role model for clean, efficient, and accountable management (Renstra
DIKTI 2012).
The retreat of the government from the management of universities has been
very much influenced by the need to make the government, like entrepreneurs,
empower other local organizations or units to seek and enhance sources of in-
come (Hood, 1991; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Pollit & Bouckaert, 2004). To ma-
terialize the implementation of the entrepreneurial government, universities
must be repositioned and altered as corporate actors or organizations to enable
market-led, rationalistic management to occur (De Boer, Enders, & Leysite, 2007;
Lorenz, 2012).
In altering and reconstructing the identity of universities, strengthening their
autonomy is seen as a necessary condition that can be carried out through the
self-management of university boundaries; the control of collective resources;
and the definition of the identity that makes them special as organizations (De
Boer et al., 2007). In the case of Indonesian universities, authority has been de-
volved or decentralized except for the determination of university boundaries,
and their classification as special organizations. The government still dominates
the boundaries of universities, as mirrored in the stipulation and regulations
enacted with respect to student access requirements, tuition fees, and the entry
qualifications.
Even though autonomy has been given to universities, the government still
has a hand in the implementation, particularly of the rationalization of univer-
sity management so as to ensure the accountability and quality assurance of
the provision of higher education services. These mechanisms of control have
been further concretized in the audit culture, through monitoring, controlling,
and reporting mechanisms, helping to uphold credibility for the stakeholders.
The establishment of an internal and external board of quality assurance in each
310      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

university has been the real manifestation of the spirit of a half-hearted auton-
omy endowed by the government to the academic community in Indonesia. In
this situation, academics have witnessed and experienced hybrid mechanisms of
hands-on and hands-off government permeating teaching, research, and com-
munity services. In the effort to minimize or even diminish the role of govern-
ment, the reaffirmation of the State is still visible. This fits well with the concept
of “steering at a distance” (Kickert, 1995) and the political technology (Shore &
Wright, 1999).
Against this backdrop is the longstanding lethargic productivity of academics
in undertaking research and publication in teaching-based higher education in-
stitutions. There is a need for mechanisms to motivate or to compel, so to speak,
academics to be more productive via performative measurements, garnished
with sanctions and rewards. The state positions itself as an architect that will
design and plan for the change in programs, as a driver and captain to motivate,
punish, and reward in the course of implementation of the programs and also
as a leader that observes the implementation of the programs from the balcony.
These are practices that are regarded as the reincarnation of Weberian bureau-
cracy, ones that have widely been accused of thwarting the success and produc-
tivity of organizations (Miller, 2009).
The aforementioned phenomena are further manifested in the official docu-
ments of the Higher Education Act of 2012 and the 2013 Guidance and Procedures
of Teachers’ Workload Systems. Both written documents clearly demonstrate the
predominant roles and guidance played by the state to regulate and ensure the
quality of work performance of academics through audit mechanism of their
routines. The work audits are summed up in the words “accountability, fiscal
transparency, quality assurance, accreditation board, board of quality assurance, inter-
nal assessor, external assessor, and government control.”
The quality of Indonesian universities has also been affected by market ideol-
ogies and with the economization of education, wherein education services are
seen as a process of economic transaction in which sellers and buyers exchange
products (Lorenz, 2012). In the Higher Education Act of 2012, the quality of ed-
ucation is assessed on the premise that education is able to surpass the national
standards to meet the need of customers. The emphasis on customers has in-
dicated that the end products of higher education services should, to a larger
extent, benefit higher education services users, exchanging the money they have
invested to gain skills, diplomas, and qualifications as passports to enter the
workplace (Lorenz, 2012). The standards of education set by the government is
being assessed in the domain of quantitative rather than qualitative, as reflected
in end products of the education process that are aligned with skills needed for
the marketplace.
In Indonesian higher education, there has been a tendency toward a shift
of knowledge production from the traditional purposes of theoretical-related
knowledge mastery to the practical-related knowledge. Gibbons, et al. (1994)
have identified this as a change from a mode 1 of knowledge production, where
the goal is knowledge (Bleiklie & Byrkjeflot, 2002; Delanty, 1998) to a mode 2 of
knowledge production (Bleiklie & Byrkjeflot, 2002; Delanty, 1998). The mode 2 of
knowledge production has led the Indonesian government to call for universi-
ties to become more vocationally oriented.
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      311

This call has been enthusiastically responded to by universities by opening

vocational study programs which go in tandem with academic study programs.
This is manifested in the current higher education systems in Indonesia which
operate in a binary system—i.e., there is an academic stream and a vocational/pro-
fessional stream. The vocational stream consists of the polytechnics and the aka-
demi (The DGHE, 2012). Programs offered in the vocational stream are 1-year,
2-year, 3-year, and 4-year diploma programs (D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4), ranging
from accountancy to engineering, information technology, language, and nurs-
ing programs.
The academic stream (sarjana programs) consists of 4-year undergraduate
(S-1), 2-year master’s (S-2), and 3-year doctoral (S-3) programs. The academic
stream also includes academic professions like medical doctors or accountants
(The DGHE, 2012). Higher education in Indonesia offering both academic and
vocational streams can be differentiated based on the levels and study pro-
grams, such as Universities, Institutes, Colleges, Polytechnics, Academies and
Community Academies (The DGHE, 2012). The purposes of higher education
remains within the three functions of higher education (known in Indonesia as
the Tri Darma Perguruan Tinggi)—teaching, research, and community services.
The change of the name of the previous Directorate General of Higher Education
(DIKTI) to the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education (RISTEK
DIKTI) indicates the desire of the government to advance research and tech-
nology in order to elevate the competitive edge of Indonesia, which will help
increase economic growth. With this, academics are encouraged to produce more
research, more publications, and obtain more research grants with incentives and
reward mechanisms. This kind of conduct could lead academics to pursue schol-
arship and research based on pecuniary and instrumental goals, derailing them
from the notion of “idle curiosity” (Veblen, 1918) in the search for knowledge.

Conclusion
The conundrum of the role of the state in NPM-driven higher education has
become a central issue in the theory and practice of neoliberal ideology and it
may be better understood by considering the contexts where this occurs. The
example drawn from Indonesia has shown that the role of the state is not always
perceived in hostility, given that Indonesian higher education is still in its tran-
sition period, where the values, norms, and beliefs of a preexisting patrimonial
political system overlap with corporate or businesses values, norms, and beliefs.
Thus, the presence and support of the state to overcome the former norms and to
provide a medium for more market-driven behavior to take root and grow, are
certainly needed.

Note
1New nomenclature of previous Directorate General of Higher Education.

References
Abizadeh, Arash. (2008). Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally control
your own borders. Political Theory, 36(1), 37–65.
Altbach, Philip. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education,
41, 205–219.
312      Asian Politics & Policy—Volume 11, Issue 2—2019

Ayers, David Franklin. (2005). Neoliberal ideology in community college mission statements: A
critical discourse analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 527–549.
Ball, Stephen. (2018). Global education policy: Reform and profit. Relepe, 3(1), 1–15.
Beerkens, Erick. (2008). Indonesia: Students and the rise and fall of Suharto. University World News.
p. 12.
Bleiklie, Ivar, & Byrkjeflot, Haldor. (2002). Changing knowledge regimes: Universities in a new re-
search environment. Higher Education, 44, 519–532.
Brodjonegoro, S. S. (2002). Higher education reform in Indonesia. The International Seminar from Peril to
promise: How higher education can deliver. Bath City, UK: British Council International Seminar.
Burnes, Berna. (1996). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. London:
Financial Times Pitman Publishing.
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state: Power, politics and ideology in the remaking of social
welfare. London: Sage.
De Boer, Harry, Enders, Jurgen, Leisyte, Ludvika. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher edu-
cation: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.
Delanty, Gerard. (1998). The idea of the university in the global era: From knowledge as an end to
the end of knowledge? Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 12(1), 3–25.
Denhardt, Janet V. & Denhardt, Robert B. (2007). The new public service: serving not steering.
New York: M.E Sharpe.
Directorate General of Higher Education. (2012). Indonesian systems of higher education. Retrieved
from http://www.dikti.go.id
Drechsler, Wolfgang. (2005). The reemergence of “Weberian” public administration after the fall
of new public management: The central and Eastern European perspective. Halduskultuur, 6,
94–108.
Drechsler, Wolfgang. (2009). The rise and demise of the new public management: Lessons and
opportunities for South East Europe. Uprava Letnik, VII(3), 7–29.
Du Gay Paul. (2000). In praise of bureaucracy Weber, organisation, ethics. London: Sage.
Dunn, William, & Miller, David. (2007). A critique of the new public management and the neo-
weberian state: Advancing a critical theory of administrative reform. Public Organization
Review, 7, 345–358.
Ferlie, Ewan, Musselin, Christine, & Andresani, Gianluca. (2008). The steering of higher education
systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, 56, 325–348.
Foucault, Michel. (1982). The subject and power. In Hubert Dreyfus & Paul Rabinow (Eds.), Michel
Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gaus, Nurdiana & Hall, David. (2015a). Neoliberal governance in Indonesian universities: the im-
pact upon academic identity. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35(9/10), 666–682.
Gaus, Nurdiana & Hall, David. (2015b). Weapon of the weak: The hidden transcripts of academics’
resistance to policy imperatives in Indonesian universities. International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy, 35(9/10), 683–698.
Gaus, Nurdiana, & Hall, David. (2016). Performance indicators in Indonesian universities: The per-
ception of academics. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 127–144.
Gaus, Nurdiana, Basri, Muhammad, & Sultan, Sultan. (2017). State bureaucracy in Indonesian and
its reforms: An overview. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(8), 658–669.
Gibbons, Michael, Trow, Martin, Scott, Peter, Schwartzman, Simon, Nowotny, Helga, & Limoge,
Camille. (1994). The New production of knowledge the dynamics of science and research in contempo-
rary society. London: Sage.
Giroux, Henry. (2002). The corporate war against higher education. Workplace, 9, 103–117.
Hatch, Jo Mary. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. London:
Oxford University Press.
Hayek, Friedrich. (1944). The road to serfdom. London: Routledge & Kogan Paul.
Henkel, Mary. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher
Education, 49, 155–176.
Hood, Christopher. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
Irianto, Saya. (2012). Kebebasan akademik itu…. (Academic freedom is….). Retrieved from http://edu-
kasi.kompas.com/read/2012/05/05/1237102/kebebasan.akademik.itu
Kemenpan-RB. (2013). A grand design of bureaucratic reform. Jakarta, Indonesia: The author.
Kickert, Walter. (1995). Steering at a distance: A new paradigm of public governance in Dutch
higher education. Governance, 8(1), 135–157.
Kogan, Maurice, & Hanney, Stephen. (2000). Reforming higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publisher Ltd.
Lorenz, Chris. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveilance? Universities, neoliberal-
ism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 599–629.
 Indonesian Higher Education Reform Policy      313

Lynch, Kathleen. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education.
European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17.
Miller, David. (2009). Democracy’s domain. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 37(3), 201–228.
Olssen, Michael, & Peters, Mark. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge econ-
omy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
Mok, Ka-Ho. (2003). Globalisation and higher education restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and
Mainland China. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 117–129.
Osborne, David, & Gaebler, Ted. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial government is
transforming the public sector. New York: PLume.
Pollit, Christopher, & Bouckaert, Geert. (2004). Public management reform. A comparative analysis.
London: Oxford University Press.
Pollit, Christopher, Thiel, S. Van, & Homburg, Vincent. (2007). New public management in Europe.
Management Online Review, 1–7.
Renstra Dikti. (2012). Rencana strategis 2010–2014 Dikti (Resntra Dikti). Jakarta, Indonesia: The
Directorate General of Higher Education.
Roberts, Keith, & Donahue, Karen. (2000). Professing professionalism: Bureaucratisation and
deprofessionalisation in the academy. Sociological Focus, 33(4), 365–383.
Sabatier, Paul A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A criti-
cal analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(7), 21–48.
Scott, James C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Shore, Cris, & Wright, Susan. (1999). Audit culture and anthropology: Neoliberalism in British
higher education. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(4), 557–575.
Simons, Maarten, & Masschelein, Jan. (2006). The learning society and governmentality: An intro-
duction. Higher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 417–430.
Smith, Adam. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (1st edition). London:
W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
Sukemi. (2012). The difference between HE Act 1999 and HE Act 2012. Republika, 23, 1.
Sulistyono, Singgih Tri. (2007, July 26). Higher education reform in Indonesia at crossroad. Paper pre-
sented at the Graduate School of Education and Human Development Conference. Nagoya
University, Japan.
Susanti, Dewi. (2010). Privatisation and marketization of higher education in Indonesia: The chal-
lenge for equal access and academic values. Higher Education, 61, 209–218.
Tajuddin, Muhammad. (2007). Indonesia. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International
Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 769–780). The Netherlands: Springer.
Thompson, Fred, & Miller, Hugh. (2003). New public management and bureaucracy versus busi-
ness values and bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(4), 328–343.
Trow, Martin. (1996). Trust, market, and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspec-
tive. Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309–324.
Trowler, Paul. (1998). Academics responding to change. New higher education frameworks and academic
cultures. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education.
Veblen, Thorstein. (1918). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities
by businessmen. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wicaksono, Teguh Yudo, & Friawan, Deni. (2011). Recent development in higher education in
Indonesia: Issues and challenges. In S. Arsmtrong & B. Chapman (Eds.), Financing higher
education and economic development in East Asia (pp. 159–188). Canberra: Australian National
University Press.
Widohariadi, & Permono, Bambang. (Ed.). (1983). Peringatan 70 Tahun Pendidikan Dokter di Surabaya.
Surabaya, Indonesia: Universitas Airlangga.
World Bank. (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. The International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development. Washington DC: World Bank.
Yanow, Dvora. (1987). A criticisms: What implementation research has not taught us: Toward a pol-
icy culture approach to implementation. Policy Studies Review, 7(1), 103–115.

View publication stats