"In the whimsical land of Konoha, President Hokage was known for his heartfelt compassion towards his ministers. One sunny afternoon, he called an emergency meeting, his brow furrowed with concern. “Gentlemen,” he began, “I’ve received troubling reports that many of you are still without official vehicles! How can we expect you to serve the people effectively without proper transportation?”
The ministers nodded solemnly, some even wiping away a tear at the thought of their plight. Little did President Hokage know, one particular minister—fondly dubbed the Yellow Minister—was soaring high above in his private jet, sipping on coconut water with his family, utterly oblivious to the struggles of his colleagues.
As the meeting continued, the President lamented, “Our people are suffering from job losses and economic downturns. We must set an example of humility and service!”
Meanwhile, Minister Kuning was busy posting pictures on social media, showcasing his luxurious vacation, while the citizens below were grappling with unemployment. The irony was thick enough to slice; while the President fretted over lack of cars for his ministers, one of them was cruising at 30,000 feet in a jet that could easily seat a dozen families.
After the meeting, a young aide whispered to the President about Minister Kuning’s extravagant lifestyle. “But surely,” the President mused aloud, “he must be doing this for the good of Konoha! After all, who else would understand the importance of luxury?”
As news spread among the citizens about their leaders’ disconnect from reality, satire began to flourish. Comedians took to the streets with signs reading “Vote for Minister Kuning: The Only Minister Who Can Fly Above It All!”
In this land where ninjas and jutsu reigned supreme, perhaps it was time for a new kind of jutsu: one that could awaken leaders to the realities faced by their people—without needing a private jet to do so.
Truly, the ministers of Konoha—whose numbers rival the stars in the sky—though not all, but most, seem to have taken up their posts not to serve the people, but to master the fine art of job hunting and perfecting the ancient craft of swindling their own citizens."
Now, let's continue!
Anti-mainstream economics refers to a broad category of economic thought that challenges the assumptions, models, and values of mainstream or neoclassical economics. Rather than accepting the idea that markets are always efficient and that individuals act purely rationally, anti-mainstream economists tend to emphasise the roles of institutions, power dynamics, culture, gender, the environment, and historical context in shaping economic outcomes.
This branch of thought includes various schools such as institutional economics, ecological economics, feminist economics, Marxian economics, and post-Keynesian economics, among others. Each of these approaches brings different assumptions and priorities. For example, institutional economists focus on the influence of social norms and legal frameworks, while ecological economists argue that economic systems must operate within the limits of the planet’s natural resources. Feminist economists, on the other hand, highlight the economic contributions and constraints experienced by women, especially in unpaid labor and care work.
Overall, anti-mainstream economics offers a more pluralistic and often more human-centered perspective. It often critiques the narrow focus on GDP and market efficiency, advocating instead for economic models that are more inclusive, socially just, and ecologically sustainable. These perspectives are especially valuable for analyzing real-world issues that cannot be easily explained using conventional economic theory.
The economic orientation of Indonesia during the Old Order (Orde Lama) under President Sukarno and the New Order (Orde Baru) under President Suharto reflects a notable contrast in terms of economic philosophy—and this difference can indeed be interpreted through the lens of anti-mainstream versus mainstream economics.
During the Old Order, particularly in the first two decades following independence in 1945, Indonesia’s economic vision was shaped significantly by nationalist and socialist ideals. The founding figures, such as Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, envisioned an economic model that prioritized social justice, state-led development, and economic self-reliance. Hatta, in particular, was influenced by cooperative economics and a form of democratic socialism. This approach sought to avoid both Western-style capitalism and Soviet-style communism, advocating instead for what they saw as a “Third Way” that was in harmony with Indonesia’s socio-cultural values—especially the spirit of gotong royong (mutual cooperation).
Economically, the Old Order favored nationalization of industries (particularly Dutch-owned enterprises), strong state involvement in strategic sectors, and policies aimed at reducing dependence on foreign capital. These characteristics align with several themes in anti-mainstream economics, especially institutional economics (with its emphasis on the historical and cultural roots of institutions) and even elements of Marxist thought, which were visible in Sukarno's alignment with leftist movements domestically and internationally. The goal was not simply growth, but transformation — creating an economic system that was fair, independent, and oriented toward the collective good.
However, this approach suffered from several implementation challenges: weak institutions, political instability, hyperinflation, and deteriorating relations with Western countries. These practical difficulties eventually contributed to the rise of the New Order regime.
With the emergence of the New Order in the late 1960s, Indonesia made a decisive turn toward mainstream economic thinking. Suharto's government prioritized political stability, economic growth, and integration into global markets. Key to this shift was the involvement of the so-called “Berkeley Mafia” — a group of Western-trained Indonesian economists, many of whom were educated at the University of California, Berkeley. Their influence marked a new era of technocratic governance, characterized by policies rooted in neoclassical economics: market liberalization, macroeconomic stabilization, foreign investment promotion, and export-led growth.
Under their guidance, Indonesia experienced significant economic expansion, especially from the 1970s through the early 1990s. However, this growth came with trade-offs. The New Order regime often suppressed dissent, centralized power, and relied on crony capitalism, with economic benefits disproportionately flowing to politically connected elites. Moreover, while the macroeconomic indicators looked healthy, deeper social and environmental issues — such as inequality, rural poverty, and deforestation — were often neglected.
In summary, the Old Order leaned more toward anti-mainstream economic ideas, with a focus on social equity, nationalism, and institutional reform in line with Indonesia’s unique identity. In contrast, the New Order, particularly under the influence of the Berkeley Mafia, embraced mainstream economic principles, aiming for rapid modernization through technocratic and market-oriented policies. Each approach had its strengths and limitations, but the contrast between them illustrates how economic ideology can profoundly shape a nation's developmental path.
Indonesia, as one of Southeast Asia’s largest economies, is often celebrated for its steady GDP growth and increasing integration into global markets. However, when viewed through the lens of anti-mainstream economics, this narrative warrants deeper scrutiny. Rather than focusing solely on aggregate growth indicators, alternative economic perspectives emphasize the role of institutions, environmental limits, gender dynamics, and structural inequality — all of which reveal a more complex and often troubling economic landscape.
From an institutional economics viewpoint, the formal economic structures in Indonesia cannot be fully understood without considering the informal networks and socio-cultural norms that govern real economic behavior. The persistence of corruption, clientelism, and bureaucratic inefficiencies continues to undermine efforts at equitable development. Despite various reforms, the rule of law remains inconsistently applied, often favoring political or economic elites. As a result, institutions that are supposed to support market fairness often end up entrenching inequality.
Incorporating an ecological economics approach, Indonesia’s development model raises serious concerns about sustainability. The country’s vast natural resources — from palm oil and coal to nickel and timber — have been heavily exploited in the name of economic progress. However, the ecological cost is staggering: deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and increasing carbon emissions are undermining the well-being of communities and ecosystems. The growth-driven paradigm fails to acknowledge that Indonesia’s natural capital is finite and that continued environmental degradation threatens long-term prosperity, especially for rural and Indigenous populations.
A feminist economics perspective further reveals how mainstream economic metrics, such as GDP, obscure the value of unpaid care work and the gendered dynamics of labor. In Indonesia, millions of women contribute to the economy through informal or unpaid roles — such as managing households, caregiving, or running micro-businesses — yet these contributions are often invisible in official statistics and policy considerations. Furthermore, access to financial services, education, and property rights remains uneven, limiting the economic agency of many women and reinforcing cycles of dependency and vulnerability.
Meanwhile, post-Keynesian economics challenges the assumption that markets are self-correcting or that inflation targeting alone can drive balanced growth. In Indonesia, income inequality remains high, and economic vulnerability persists despite headline growth. Structural issues such as underemployment, low wages, and precarious labor conditions reveal that effective demand within the domestic economy is often insufficient. A more nuanced macroeconomic policy would prioritize job creation, redistribution, and public investment in health, education, and infrastructure — not just private-sector-led growth.
In sum, anti-mainstream economic approaches highlight that Indonesia’s economy cannot be fully understood by looking at GDP or trade figures alone. Real progress must be evaluated through the lenses of institutional integrity, environmental sustainability, social equity, and human well-being. These perspectives challenge policymakers to rethink what counts as “development” and for whom it truly serves.
Indonesia faces several challenges that make it less attractive to foreign investors compared to countries like Thailand and Vietnam. Indonesia has relatively high severance costs for workers, comparable to those in Vietnam and Thailand. However, labor productivity in Indonesia is perceived to be lower. Investors tend to favor countries where labor costs are lower and productivity is higher.
Indonesia's licensing processes can be complex and inconsistent between central and regional governments. This creates uncertainty for investors. Additionally, overlapping regulations often make it difficult for businesses to operate efficiently.
Corruption remains a significant issue in Indonesia, which is seen as less transparent compared to Vietnam. In global corruption perception indexes, Indonesia often ranks lower than Vietnam, making it less appealing for investors seeking a fair business environment.
Indonesia's infrastructure is still underdeveloped in many areas, which can hinder business operations. Social stability is also a concern, with frequent labor protests and demonstrations. In contrast, Vietnam and Thailand provide more stable environments for businesses.
Infrastructure refers to the essential facilities and systems that support the functioning and growth of a community, economy, or society. This encompasses physical structures such as transportation networks (roads, bridges, railways), utilities (water supply, electricity, telecommunications), and social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, and public facilities) that enable individuals and businesses to operate effectively. In the context of Indonesia, the development of infrastructure is crucial for fostering economic growth, improving living standards, and enhancing connectivity between regions. Despite the recognized importance of infrastructure development, many areas in Indonesia still face significant challenges that hinder progress. One major factor is the geographical diversity of the country, which consists of over 17,000 islands. This archipelagic nature presents unique challenges for infrastructure development, as the dispersion of populations across these islands complicates the planning and execution of projects. Building roads, bridges, and utilities in remote or isolated locations can prove logistically difficult and costly, leading to delays and limited access to essential services.
Another critical issue is funding and financial constraints. The limited availability of public funding often hinders the development of infrastructure in many regions. Although the Indonesian government has made efforts to allocate resources for infrastructure projects, competing priorities such as education, healthcare, and social services often limit the budget available for construction and maintenance. Additionally, attracting private investment can be challenging due to the perceived risks and uncertainties associated with infrastructure projects, particularly in less developed areas.
Regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles also contribute to the slow pace of infrastructure development. Complex regulations, delays in obtaining permits, and land acquisition disputes can impede progress. Bureaucratic inefficiencies can discourage potential investors and contractors from pursuing projects in certain areas, further exacerbating regional disparities in infrastructure quality.
Corruption and mismanagement pose significant obstacles as well. Instances of bribery, kickbacks, and misuse of funds can undermine the effectiveness of infrastructure projects, leading to substandard work or incomplete developments. Corruption erodes public trust in government institutions and diminishes the potential benefits of infrastructure investments, particularly in regions with less oversight and accountability.
Socioeconomic factors play a crucial role in infrastructure development as well. Regions with lower economic activity may struggle to attract the necessary investment and resources for infrastructure improvements. Without adequate infrastructure, economic growth can stagnate, creating a cycle of underdevelopment. Additionally, communities lacking access to essential services often face increased challenges, such as reduced educational and employment opportunities, perpetuating cycles of poverty.
A lack of long-term planning can hinder infrastructure development. Effective infrastructure projects require a coherent and strategic vision that aligns with regional needs and economic goals. However, inadequate planning at national and local levels can lead to inefficient resource allocation and piecemeal projects that fail to address the broader infrastructure needs of communities.
So, while infrastructure is vital for Indonesia's economic development and improving the quality of life, various challenges hinder its growth in many areas. Geographical diversity, funding constraints, regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles, corruption, socioeconomic factors, and a lack of long-term planning all contribute to the slow progress of infrastructure projects. Addressing these issues requires concerted efforts from the government, private sector, and communities to foster effective collaboration, streamline processes, and create an environment conducive to sustainable infrastructure development across the country.
Land prices for industrial development in Indonesia are significantly higher than in Vietnam. This is a critical factor for investors deciding where to establish factories or other facilities. The high land prices in Indonesia can be attributed to a combination of factors, including high demand, limited supply, speculative behavior, and systemic issues within the real estate market. One significant reason for the increasing land prices is the rapid urbanization and economic growth that Indonesia has experienced in recent years. As more people migrate to urban areas in search of better job opportunities and living conditions, the demand for residential and commercial land has surged. This heightened demand often outstrips supply, leading to increased prices.
Additionally, speculation plays a critical role in driving up land prices. Investors and developers often purchase land as a speculative investment, anticipating that prices will continue to rise. This creates a cycle of inflated prices, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to afford land for housing or business use. The speculative nature of the market can create a disconnect between actual land value and what buyers are willing to pay, further exacerbating affordability issues.
Another contributing factor to high land prices in Indonesia is the presence of intermediaries, or land brokers, who often play a pivotal role in the buying and selling process. While brokers can facilitate transactions, there are instances where their fees and commissions can artificially inflate land costs. In some cases, brokers may engage in unethical practices, such as manipulating prices or withholding information to maximize their profits, contributing to the overall expense of land transactions.
Corruption among government officials can further complicate the situation. In Indonesia, instances of corrupt practices related to land use and ownership have been documented, where officials may accept bribes in exchange for favorable land deals or permits. This corruption can lead to the misallocation of land and create an environment where prices are distorted due to the lack of transparency and oversight.
Moreover, the legal and regulatory framework surrounding land ownership in Indonesia can be cumbersome and unclear. Lengthy processes for obtaining permits and unclear land titles can add to the costs of land transactions, pushing prices higher. Additionally, the complex nature of land tenure and ownership rights can lead to disputes and uncertainties, which also contribute to the market being driven by speculation and resulting in higher prices.
Furthermore, the limited availability of land in strategic locations, especially in urban centers where infrastructure and amenities are concentrated, leads to a further increase in prices. As cities expand, the competition for prime locations intensifies, exacerbating the issue as developers and businesses seek to secure land in advantageous areas.
So, the high land prices in Indonesia result from a combination of rapid urbanization, speculative investment behavior, the involvement of land brokers, corruption among government officials, and a complex regulatory environment. These factors interplay to create a challenging landscape for land affordability, particularly for individuals and small businesses, and address the growing demand for accessible land in an increasingly urbanized country. Addressing these issues requires a multi-faceted approach that includes improving transparency, reforming land-use regulations, and tackling corruption to create a more equitable land market.
In Indonesia, protests and demonstrations by labor groups have become a common occurrence, driven by various social, economic, and political factors. One of the primary reasons for these protests is the demand for better working conditions and fair wages. Many workers in Indonesia, particularly those in manufacturing and low-wage sectors, often face harsh working environments, long hours, and inadequate compensation. As the cost of living continues to rise, workers are increasingly vocal about their need for wage increases that reflect both inflation and their contributions to the economy.
Another significant factor contributing to labor protests is the issue of job security. Many workers in Indonesia are employed on short-term contracts or in precarious positions that offer little protection or benefits. This lack of job security can create uncertainty and anxiety among workers, prompting them to organize and advocate for more stable employment arrangements and greater protections under labor laws.
Labor rights in Indonesia are further complicated by the presence of a diverse and often fragmented labor movement. While there are many labor unions that advocate for workers' rights, they can sometimes be divided along ideological, political, or sectoral lines, making it challenging to present a united front. Nevertheless, when workers feel their rights are being violated or neglected, they mobilize to voice their grievances, which can lead to large-scale protests.
The Omnibus Law on Job Creation, commonly referred to as UU Cipta Kerja, has indeed become a significant source of discontent among workers in Indonesia. Enacted in October 2020, the law aimed to streamline regulations, attract foreign investment, and create jobs by simplifying the bureaucratic processes associated with business operations. However, many labor groups and workers have expressed concerns about its implications for workers' rights, job security, and overall labor conditions.
One of the primary reasons the Omnibus Law has become a point of contention is that it includes provisions that are perceived to weaken labor protections. For example, the law modifies regulations regarding severance pay, contract labor, and the establishment of trade unions. Workers fear that these changes will lead to reduced job security and lower wages, as employers may find it easier to hire and fire workers without adequate compensation. Such modifications are seen as prioritizing business interests over worker welfare, which has fueled protests and demonstrations.
Additionally, the law's emphasis on attracting foreign investment has raised concerns among labor unions about potential exploitation and the erosion of labor rights. Many workers believe that the deregulation measures could incentivize companies to prioritize profit margins at the expense of fair labor practices, leading to poor working conditions and inadequate protection for employees.
The lack of broad consultation with labor organizations during the drafting and passage of the Omnibus Law further exacerbated feelings of dissatisfaction among workers. Many labor groups feel marginalized and believe that their voices were not adequately represented in the legislative process. This perceived disregard for workers’ input has led to an increase in protests and strikes, as workers seek to assert their rights and demand a reconsideration of the law's provisions.
Furthermore, the Omnibus Law has been criticized for potentially undermining environmental regulations, which some workers view as interconnected with their rights and livelihoods. Concerns about environmental degradation can also impact communities and workers’ health, making the law a broader social issue beyond labor rights alone.
The UU Cipta Kerja has become a source of significant dissatisfaction among Indonesian workers primarily due to its perceived erosion of labor protections, lack of consultation with labor unions, and the potential for increased exploitation in the pursuit of economic growth. The ongoing protests and demonstrations reflect a growing movement among workers to voice their concerns and push for more equitable labor practices and protections in the face of regulatory changes that they believe threaten their rights and livelihoods. Addressing these grievances will require meaningful dialogue between the government, employers, and labor organizations to ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of workers' well-being.
