Intermestic Approach: A Methodological Alternative in Studying Policy Change

https://doi.org/10.22146/pcd.26293

Dyah Estu Kurniawati(1*)

(1) Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


In policy change study, there are at least two main methods used, namely the domestic and international approaches. The classification of approaches is not only based on who the actors are involved in the policy change process or where the source of influence comes from, but more fundamentally each approach emphasizes a different political arena. The domestic approach that is dominant in the study of political science and public policy administration explains policy change as an arena of domestic actors in the fight for their own self-interests. Meanwhile the international approach developed in the study of international relations oversees policy change as an arena for the achievement of the international or transnational actors’ interests who want a policy change either by pressuring for changes or providing preferences that can be selected voluntarily by the governments in the decision-making process. This paper aimed at reviewing the methodology of the two approaches that had existed previously and trying to introduce an alternative approach called intermestic (international domestic). The intermestic approach is useful to analyse the policy change in the globalization era that occurs as if the world is “borderless”. This approach starts with the explanation that the domestic and international categories are no longer relevant. In other words, the intermestic approach emphasizes the one fatal mistake that we did was precisely in the selection of the domestic and international arena in the policy change process because the world was headed for a “one space or global political arena”. However, in the intermestic approach the idea of state sovereignty is an important aspect and the government still has the main role in the policy change process in addition to those influences of other actors. Nevertheless, the role of states becomes ambiguous because the globalization process has redefined the sovereignty rights and political power of the nation state.


Keywords


Policy change; intermestic approach; globalization; borderless world

Full Text:

PDF


References

 

Silke, A, & Kriesi, H. (2007). The Network Approach. In Sabatier, P. A (Ed.), Theories of Policy Process (pp.129-154). Colorado: Westview Press.

Addler, E. (1997). Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relation, 3 (3). 319-363.

Alison, Graham T. (1971). Essence of Decision. Boston: Little Brown.

Almond, G.A., & Powell Jr, G.B. (1978). Comparative Politics: System, Process, and Policy. Boston: Little Brown.

Budiman, A. (1996). Teori Pembangunan Dunia Ketiga. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Bratt, D. (2013). Clarifying The Policy Broker in The Coalition Advocacy Framework.  Paper presented at International Conference on Public Policy, in France.

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Checkel, J.T. (1997). International Norms and Domestic Politics Bridging the Rationalist-Constructivist Divide. European Journal of International Relations. 473-495.

Conyers, D. (1983). Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration?. Public Administration and Development, Vol 3 (2). 97-109

Dryzek, J.S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norms Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887-917.

Fischer, F & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham. NC: Duke University Press.

Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (Eds.). (1995). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Gourevitch, P. (1978). The Second Image Reverse: The International Source of Domestic Politics. International Organizations, 32( 4), 881-912.

Gramsci, A. (2013). Prison Notebooks: Catatan-catatan dari Penjara. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Haas, P.M. (Ed.). (1992). Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in The Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heclo, H. (1978). Issue Networks and The Executive Establishment. In Anthony King (Ed.). The New American Political System. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute. 444-456

Huntington, S. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in The Late Twentieth Century. US: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kana, N.L, et.al. (eds). (2001). Dinamika Politik Lokal di Indonesia: Perubahan, Tantangan, dan Harapan. Salatiga: Pustaka Percik.

Keck, M.E., & Sikkink, K. (1997). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (Eds.). (1971). Transnationalism and World Politics. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1989). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little-Brown,. (2nd ed.).

Keohane, R. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly , 32 (4), 379-396.

Malarangeng, R. (2002). Mendobrak Sentralisme Orde Baru Tahun 1986-1992. Jakarta. Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia.

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.

Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies 31(4), 473-524.

Mas’oed, M. (2002). Tantangan Internasional dan Keterbatasan Nasional: Analisis Ekonomi Politik tentang Globalisasi Neoliberal. A speech on inaugural on professorship at Political Science Faculty of Gadjah Mada University. Yogyakarta: unpublished.

Mas’oed, M. (1994). Negara, Kapital, dan Demokrasi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Novak, Ml. (1999). On Cultivating Liberty – Reflections on Moral Ecology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Prisma (2014). Otonomi Daerah untuk Siapa?. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies 44.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Network, Governance, Reflexity and Accountability. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Risse-Kappen, T., Ropp, S.C, & Sikkink, K. (1999). The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rossenau, J.N, (Ed.). (1995). Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sabatier, P.A., & Jenkins-Smith. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P.A., & Jenkins-Smith. (2007). Theories of Policy Process. Colorado: Westview Press.

Santoso, P. (2011). Ilmu Sosial Transformatif. A speech on Inaugural Professorship at Social and Political Sciences Faculty of Gadjah Mada University. Yogyakarta: unpublished.

Santoso, P. (2002). Epistemik Politik dan Pelembagaan Local Good Governance retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/13236005/epistemik-politik

Scocpol, T.,, Evans, P., & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.) (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shepsle, K. (1989). Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from The Rational Choice Approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 131-147.

Sugiono, M. (1999). Kritik Antonio Gramsci terhadap Pembangunan Dunia Ketiga. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Viotti, P.R., & Kauppi, M. (Eds.). (1987). International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York).

Viotti, P.R., & Kauppi, M. (Eds.). (1999). International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Waltz, K. (1959). Theory of International Relations. In Greenstein, F., & Polsby, N. (Eds.). 1975. Handbook of Political Science: International Relations, 8. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It. International Organization, 46 (2).

Widjajanto, A., et.al. (2007). Transnasionalisasi Masyarakat Sipil. Yogyakarta: LKIS.

 



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/pcd.26293

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1907 | views : 1368

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Power, Conflict and Democracy Journal

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

web
analytics View My Stats

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

       

 

 

                                © Faculty of Social and Political Sciences Gadjah Mada University Jl. Sosio-Yustisia Bulaksumur Yogyakarta 55281
                                                     Telp (0274) 563362 Ext. 150; +62 811 2515 863 - email: pcd@ugm.ac.id