for the benefit of children alone? a discourse analysis of policymaking relating to children's ...

289 Pages·2016·2.19 MB·English

FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN ALONE?
A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF POLICYMAKING RELATING TO

CHILDREN’S INSTITUTIONS IN INDONESIA, 1999-2009

Brian Keith Babington

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
of The Australian National University
December 2015
Declaration
I declare that, except where acknowledged, this dissertation is my own original work
and has not been submitted for a higher research degree at any other university or
institution.

Brian Keith Babington
16 December 2015

2
Preface and acknowledgements
The origins of this dissertation lay in three interrelated concerns that have preoccupied
much of my professional life over the past decade. First, as a participant in the non-
government campaign that helped to establish the National Framework for Protecting
Australia’s Children 2009-2020—Australia’s first-ever national policy to reduce rates of
child abuse and neglect—I observed how policy change resulted from the complex
interplay of short and longer-term factors, such as agitation for policy change from the
non-government sector, the accumulated weight of research findings, and compelling
media coverage (Babington 2011, pp. 11-20). Building on my involvement with
policymaking at the national level, I wished to know more about how and why change
occurs in national public policy, especially with regard to social issues.

The second impulse behind this research project lay in my involvement with a campaign
to assist a group of adults who, as children, had been placed in orphanages and other
forms of out-of-home care in Australia during the twentieth century. Their compelling,
and often tragic, stories alerted me to the plight of children in institutions and the range
of possible adverse consequences for them in later life. I found myself asking: Why did
official government policy that supported these institutions change only decades after
high-profile scientific studies had demonstrated the detrimental effects of
institutionalisation on many children? Why did government policies to end the use of
children’s institutions, or to ‘deinstitutionalise’, take so long to be put in place by
Australian and other governments? As discussed in this study, I realised that the
literature on the deinstitutionalisation of children’s institutions had not developed
satisfactory explanations about why, how and under what conditions governments made
policy changes in this area.

Finally, my involvement with children’s rights advocacy at the international level
alerted me to the fact that, while almost all large-scale children’s institutions had been
closed in countries such as the US, UK, Ireland and Australia by the 1980s, in the
present day millions of children live in orphanages and other forms of institutions away
from their families in many other parts of the world.

A number of questions arose for me from these experiences. For example, in the face of
research findings about the adverse effects of these places for many children, why had
policy change taken so long to accomplish in some countries? What explained the
3
apparent difficulty that some governments faced in devising deinstitutionalisation
policies that, at least for many researchers and children’s rights advocates, seemed so
plainly sensible and humane? This dissertation is an attempt to delve more deeply into
policymaking processes relating to the deinstitutionalisation of children’s institutions.
Specifically, it explores how and why one country, Indonesia, came to adopt a policy
during the 2000s that aimed to reduce the number of children in a particular form of
institution called panti asuhan.

My research journey has been nurtured by many people. I wish to record my sincere
appreciation to the members of my supervisory panel at the Australian National
University—Associate Professor Sharon Bessell (chair), Professor Kathryn Robinson,
and Dr Ann Nevile. I am especially grateful to Associate Professor Sharon Bessell for
her invaluable advice and encouragement. In addition to the many people who were
interviewed in the course of my research, I wish to thank Amrullah, Karen Flanagan,
Jennifer Horsfield, Elizabeth Hunter, Bill Kerley, Heath McMichael, Jayne Meyer
Tucker, Tata Sudrajat, and Bianca Williams. Special appreciation goes to Stella Conroy
for her generous advice and support throughout this project. I wish to thank the
Chairperson and Board of Families Australia, as well as Plan International Australia,
Plan International Indonesia, Save the Children Australia, and Save the Children
Indonesia. I wish to pay particular tribute my first teacher of Asian studies, the late Vic
Divola of Newington College, Sydney. My deep appreciation goes to my wife, Rhonda
Babington, for her unstinting encouragement and patience. This work is dedicated to the
memory of my maternal grandmother, Thelma Katie Peek, a believer in life-long
education.

4
Abstract
It is estimated that between two and eight million children live in orphanages or other
residential institutions in the developing world (the Global South) and in the former
Eastern Bloc. In recent decades the UN and international non-government organisations
have called upon governments in these countries to develop and implement policies to
‘deinstitutionalise’, or reduce substantially the number of children who live in
institutions.

Despite this heightened interest, research into how and why deinstitutionalisation policy
change occurs remains in its infancy, especially with regard to the Global South. Using
a discourse analysis methodology advanced by Hajer this dissertation sheds light on
deinstitutionalisation policymaking in Indonesia. Specifically, it asks: What factors led
Indonesia to adopt a policy during the 2000s to reduce reliance on a type of children’s
institution known as panti asuhan?

The prevailing explanation for Indonesia’s policy change has been that it decided in the
mid-2000s to comply more fully with the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child which opposes the separation of children from their parents except in special
circumstances. Through field interviews and other analysis I show, however, that
political, economic, cultural, and religious discourses—rather than concerns about
children’s rights only—predominated in shaping new policy.

I identify three phases in developing the new panti asuhan policy. First, from the late
1990s, a pro-reform group (or ‘discourse-coalition’) began to agitate for policy change.
Second, in the mid-2000s, a ‘status quo’ discourse-coalition which supported panti
asuhan opposed prospective policy change. Finally, the Indonesian Government’s wish
to signal its adherence to international children’s rights standards, align policy with
changed national economic, social and administrative directions, and avoid conflict with
pro-panti asuhan forces generated the final policy outcome under which panti asuhan
would continue to play a central, if somewhat changed, role while appearing to comply
with Indonesia’s children’s rights obligations. Rather than designed only to benefit
children, final policy thus attempted to appease both pro-reform and pro-panti asuhan
groups.

5
The study provides important messages for practice and research. For policymakers and
advocates, employing Hajer’s methodology can improve understandings about factors
that impede or advance progress on deinstitutionalisation policymaking in other
countries of the Global South. The study also contributes new understandings to
literatures on deinstitutionalisation, public policy, and on panti asuhan themselves. It
extends research into the deinstitutionalisation of children’s institutions by being the
first to apply Hajer’s methodology to understand how this type of policymaking
occurred in the Global South. As well as shedding further light on Indonesian social
policy in general, it also provides new understandings about attitudes towards, and the
operations of, panti asuhan.

6
Contents

Declaration ....................................................................................................................... 2
Preface and acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 3
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 5
List of tables ..................................................................................................................... 9
List of figures ................................................................................................................... 9
List of appendices ............................................................................................................ 9
PART I: CONTEXT, LITERATURES, AIMS AND METHOD ............................. 11
Chapter 1: Context and overview ................................................................................... 12
1.1 Children living without parental care ............................................................ 12
1.2 Purpose and central argument ....................................................................... 17
1.3 Structure ........................................................................................................ 20
Chapter 2: Literature review .......................................................................................... 22
2.1 Definitions ..................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Deinstitutionalisation: the former Eastern Bloc and the Global South ......... 23
2.3 Deinstitutionalisation: the Global North ....................................................... 32
2.4 Implications for research, policy and practice .............................................. 43
2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: Aims and methodology ................................................................................ 46
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 46
3.2 Social constructionism and discourse analysis ............................................. 46
3.3 Principal research question and techniques................................................... 63
3.4 Boundaries .................................................................................................... 66
3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 67
PART II: POLICY MEANINGS: SCENE-SETTING AND STORY LINES IN
INDONESIA .................................................................................................................. 68
Chapter 4: The panti asuhan policy change story ........................................................... 69
4.1 Indonesia: an overview of recent developments ........................................... 70
4.2 Panti asuhan: key characteristics and research ............................................. 71
4.3 The new panti asuhan policy and its depiction ............................................. 81
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 88
Chapter 5: Field research and main story lines ............................................................... 90
5.1 The case study: a preview ............................................................................. 90
5.2 Interview selection ........................................................................................ 91
5.3 Main story lines: a synopsis .......................................................................... 98
7
5.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 100
Chapter 6: The ‘pro-reform’ story line (i): international factors ................................... 101
6.1 Findings from the field ................................................................................ 101
6.2 Analysis and discussion .............................................................................. 106
6.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 125
Chapter 7: The ‘pro-reform’ story line (ii): new policy directions ............................... 126
7.1 Findings from the field ................................................................................ 126
7.2 Analysis and discussion .............................................................................. 134
7.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 145
Chapter 8: The ‘pro-reform’ story line (iii): escalating costs ....................................... 146
8.1 Findings from the field ................................................................................ 146
8.2 Analysis and discussion .............................................................................. 150
8.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 168
Chapter 9: The ‘status quo’ story line: ‘the friend of orphans’.................................... 169
9.1 Findings from the field ................................................................................ 169
9.2 Analysis and discussion .............................................................................. 177
9.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 205
PART III: MAKING POLICY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .......... 207
Chapter 10: From story lines to discourse institutionalisation ..................................... 208
10.1 Identifying a ‘discursive order’ ................................................................. 209
10.2 Three phases of panti asuhan policymaking ............................................. 211
10.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 236
Chapter 11: Conclusions and implications for practice and research .......................... 239
11.1 A triumph for children’s rights or ‘old wine in new bottles’? .................. 239
11.2 Practice implications for policymakers and advocates ............................. 242
11.3 Contributions to research .......................................................................... 244
Epilogue ........................................................................................................................ 248
Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 250
Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 252
Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 255
Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 258
Appendix E .................................................................................................................. 267
References .................................................................................................................... 269

8
List of tables
Table 3.1 Hajer’s ten steps for policy discourse analysis
Table 5.1 Interviewee summary, 2012-14
Table 5.2 Key findings: a typology of panti asuhan story lines
Table 6.1 Children’s homes in six provinces by year of establishment, 1930-2006
Table 6.2 Parental status of children in 36 panti asuhan in six provinces, 2006
Table 8.1 Panti asuhan, children in panti asuhan and children in Indonesia, 1990-98
Table 8.2 Fuel subsidy reduction compensation to panti asuhan and children in
panti asuhan, and children in Indonesia, 2001-09
Table 8.3 Panti asuhan and children in panti asuhan, 1990-2006 (numbers)
Table 8.4 Dekon disbursements to panti asuhan in Aceh, 2000-06
Table 8.5 Fuel subsidy reduction compensation to panti asuhan, 2001-09
Table 10.1 Key phases in the development of panti asuhan policy, 1999-2009

List of figures
Figure 7.1 Indonesian population living in poverty, 1976-2002 (per cent)
Figure D.1 Fuel subsidy reduction compensation to panti asuhan, 2001-07
Figure D.2 Panti asuhan in receipt of fuel subsidy reduction compensation, 2001-07
(number)
Figure D.3 Children living in panti asuhan supported through fuel subsidy reduction
compensation, 2001-07 (estimated number)
Figure D.4 Panti asuhan, 1990-91 to 2006-07 (estimated number)
Figure D.5 Number of panti asuhan, 1991-92 to 2006-07 (estimated growth rates)
Figure D.6 Children in panti asuhan, 1990-91 to 2006-07 (estimated number)
Figure D.7 Number of children in panti asuhan, 1991-92 to 2006-07 (estimated
growth rates)

List of appendices
Appendix A Organisations consulted, 2012-14
Appendix B Summary of interviews, 2012-14
Appendix C Indonesia: key laws, decrees and regulations relating to children and
reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
Appendix D Panti asuhan: prevalence and subsidisation
9
Appendix E Location and number of panti asuhan receiving fuel subsidy reduction
compensation, 2007

10