Abstracts & Papers in Stream 2

In the past, both indigenous social movements and the academia concerning indigenous rights seem to incline towards seeking the response from the legislative and administrative systems. However, since the occurrences of the "Movement of Fighting against Asia Cement Corporation" and other judicial cases in which indigenous people were involved, it has started to be realised that the judicial system plays a key role on how the society carries out the concept of multiculturalism. This article aims to extend the research field to the judicial system in Taiwan and takes a comprehensive view on the judicial controversies between tribes and nation over the land issues. This research emphasises on how the judicial system responds to the indigenous people reservation land controversies. The verdicts on indigenous people's reservation land include civil, criminal and administration cases. This study examines these verdicts from a "culture-welfare right" perspective, under which these verdicts will be intensely scrutinised not only on the policy level but on whether the judges possess multicultural ability.

When explaining public policy outcomes, preference is often given to structural factors, such as the population's demographic structure, the intrinsic logic of policy programs, and, most importantly, the level of economic development1. The drawback of such a one‐sided approach becomes evident when we look at social policy outcomes in East Asia, which can hardly be explained by structural factors. The current study, thus, suggests to take a more actor‐oriented perspective and analyzes social policy outcomes as the result of a policy process, in which actor groups with different policy preferences and perceptions negotiate with each other. In this perspective, increases in social welfare efforts by the State are seen as the consequence of successful advocacy and coalition building of actors who favor welfare state expansion. The focus of the study lies on the resources and constraints, which these actors face. In line with the study's conceptual framework, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we expect to find that social welfare proponents are successful in reaching their objectives when political resources, such as available information on the policy issue, are rich, and political constraints, such as the nonaccessibility of decision‐making procedures, are limited.
The study is based on data drawn from expert interviews in three East Asian countries: South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. For each of the country, key social welfare reforms of the past 30 years were selected and potential stakeholders identified and interviewed. The results suggest that the winning formula for social welfare proponents is the successful coalition‐building between technical experts with a privileged access to information on one hand and civil society groups with their potential to mobilize the public on the other hand; in some decisive moments, they have been able to join forces with higher civil servants who had a more direct access to political decision‐making.
This paper intends to elaborate about transformation of welfare regime and social conflict in Indonesia. The paper is a part of my PhD thesis on welfare regime and social capital in Indonesia. It analyzes panel dataset, i.e. Indonesia Family Life Survey 3 and 4 as well as Governance and Decentralization Survey 2. It also explores primary data resulted from focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with 92 key persons that spreads over within three levels of analysis, i.e. national, district, and community. They are government officers, parliament members, NGO activists, and social leaders. The main argument of this paper is that there has been a transformation of welfare regime in Indonesia from a regime that mainly relies on one pillar i.e. the role of community to two pillars, namely the role of community and the role of the state. The transformation has been taken place since 1998 when the government of Indonesia initiated social safety net (SSN) programs as part of structural adjustment programs controlled by World Bank. The SSN programs were replaced by poverty reduction programs in 2005 and they have been implemented until know. When the role of the state in providing welfare benefits through SSN and poverty reduction programs has been growing, the significance of community in giving livelihood for people is also thriving. The programs which provide means tested welfare benefits however generate complicated social conflict. The conflict threatened social capital as an important part of the first pillar within welfare regime in Indonesia. This happens due to low quality of population data, high policy discretion, and clientelism.

Full paper download: 4.2.1 Mulyadi Sumarto.pdf