"Mafia Berkeley" dalam Kekuasaan Orde Baru | Narasi Explains

Summary

The video explores Indonesia's economic and political transformation after 1965, focusing on the influence of the 'Berkeley Mafia,' a group of economists trained in the U.S. who played a central role in shaping the New Order regime's policies. Following Sukarno's overthrow, Suharto's government turned to these technocrats to help stabilize the economy. Their implementation of pro-Western, liberal economic policies facilitated foreign investment, leading to rapid economic recovery. However, these policies also entrenched inequality, concentrated wealth, and left a lasting legacy of environmental exploitation and socio-economic disparity.

Takeaways

• 😀 The post-1965 period in Indonesia was marked by political upheaval, with the overthrow of President Soekarno and the rise of General Suharto's military regime, known as the 'New Order.'
• 😀 The 'Berkeley Mafia' was a group of economists trained at the University of California, Berkeley, who played a key role in shaping Indonesia's economic policies under Suharto's regime.
• 😀 These economists were instrumental in the massive liberalization of Indonesia's economy and the opening of foreign investment, which helped recover the economy from the devastation caused by the previous regime.
• 😀 The economic reforms introduced by the 'Berkeley Mafia' helped reduce inflation, which had skyrocketed to 600% in 1965, down to a much more manageable 6-8% by the early 1970s.
• 😀 While the economic policies favored Western investors, they were crucial for Indonesia to receive foreign aid and loans to stabilize its economy in the 1960s and 1970s.
• 😀 The United States' covert involvement in Indonesia, including its support for the fall of Soekarno's government, is a central theme in understanding the rise of the 'Berkeley Mafia' and the economic policies they implemented.
• 😀 The 'Berkeley Mafia' was closely linked to Suharto's government, with many members holding influential positions, such as the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Finance, and the head of the National Development Planning Agency.
• 😀 The policies of the 'Berkeley Mafia' also led to a concentration of wealth among a small elite, which included military leaders and government officials, fostering crony capitalism in Indonesia.
• 😀 The 'Berkeley Mafia' phenomenon is compared to similar economic groups in other countries, such as the 'Chicago Boys' in Chile, who also promoted free-market policies during a military dictatorship.
• 😀 The legacy of the 'Berkeley Mafia' continues to be seen in the inequalities and exploitation of natural resources in Indonesia, with a lasting impact on the country's economic landscape.

Q & A

What was the economic situation in Indonesia after the 1965 coup?

After the 1965 coup, Indonesia's economy was in a disastrous state, largely destroyed due to political instability and the impact of the previous regime's policies.

Who were the 'Berkeley Mafia' and what role did they play in Indonesia's economy?

The 'Berkeley Mafia' was a group of economists trained at the University of California, Berkeley, who were appointed by Soeharto to help stabilize Indonesia's economy. They implemented pro-market economic policies that favored foreign investment and contributed to the economic recovery.

How did the United States influence Indonesia's economic policies after Soeharto took power?

The United States played a significant role in influencing Indonesia's economic policies by providing aid and encouraging liberal economic reforms. The U.S. also supported the 'Berkeley Mafia' economists, many of whom were closely tied to U.S. economic interests.

What was the economic policy focus of the 'Berkeley Mafia' economists?

The 'Berkeley Mafia' focused on liberalizing Indonesia's economy, including deregulation, encouraging foreign investment, and restructuring key sectors like oil and timber, with policies that aligned with Western economic practices.

What major achievements did Indonesia's economy experience under Soeharto's rule?

Under Soeharto, Indonesia experienced significant economic recovery, including the reduction of inflation from 600% in 1965 to 6-8% by the late 1960s. The economy began to grow steadily due to the liberalization policies and foreign investments.

What was the impact of the 'Berkeley Mafia's' economic policies on Indonesia's social and political structure?

While the economic policies led to growth and modernization, they also exacerbated social inequalities, concentrating wealth and resources in the hands of a few, particularly among military elites and political cronies. This contributed to corruption and unequal power distribution.

What role did the Ford Foundation play in the development of Indonesia's economic policies?

The Ford Foundation was instrumental in facilitating the training of Indonesian economists by funding doctoral programs in the U.S. and fostering cooperation between U.S. and Indonesian academic institutions. It helped shape the policies that would later be implemented under Soeharto.

How did Indonesia's foreign debt and relations with Western countries influence its economic decisions?

Indonesia’s foreign debt and the need for economic assistance from Western countries, including the U.S. and international organizations like the IMF, pressured the government to adopt liberal economic policies, opening the country to foreign investments and loans to modernize its economy.

What was the result of Indonesia's liberalization of its economy in the 1970s and 1980s?

The liberalization policies led to rapid economic growth, but also to increased dependence on foreign investments, social inequality, and the concentration of wealth among a small elite. These issues later contributed to the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

What is the significance of the comparison between Indonesia's 'Berkeley Mafia' and the 'Chicago Boys' in Chile?

The comparison highlights how both groups of economists, trained in U.S. institutions, implemented similar pro-market, liberal economic policies in their respective countries. In both cases, these policies led to economic growth but also deepened social inequality and concentration of wealth.