1982
DOI: 10.1177/030437548200700406
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

1. Repressive-Developmentalist Regimes in Asia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

1983
1983
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The extractive regime not only preys but combines predatory and developmental elements in what Feith (1981) once called a “repressive developmentalist” regime 6 . Without attention to both world‐historical and commodity‐based factors, it is difficult to explain how unpopular or “failed” states suffering from perennial institutional breakdown have endured in various locations across the periphery.…”
Section: Extractive Regimes: Combining World‐historical and Commoditymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The extractive regime not only preys but combines predatory and developmental elements in what Feith (1981) once called a “repressive developmentalist” regime 6 . Without attention to both world‐historical and commodity‐based factors, it is difficult to explain how unpopular or “failed” states suffering from perennial institutional breakdown have endured in various locations across the periphery.…”
Section: Extractive Regimes: Combining World‐historical and Commoditymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 One dimension of rule examined by John Pemberton (1994) and others (Dove 1999;Kahn 1999;Schrauwers 1999) is the insistent reframing of political issues in terms of cultural diversity. Another is the claim that development should be pursued as the antithesis of, and the antidote to, an excess of politics (Feith 1981;Langenberg 1990:126). The masses are to stay off the streets and in their orderly villages, focusing their energies on progress and "development."…”
Section: Development Regimesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Die BürgerInnen des indonesischen Staates waren noch auf Dorfebene Ziel von direktivem staatlichen Handeln, das sich von den Curricula in der Schule, dem Unterricht in der Nationalideologie Pancasila in allen Institutionen, der obligatorischen Mitgliedschaft in den Dharma Wanita-Vereinen 35 über die freitägliche Morgengymnastik in staatlichen Institutionen, die akribischen Vorschriften für das Tragen von Uniformen an bestimmten Wochentagen in Behörden, Schulen und Kindergärten bis zum Familienwohlfahrtsprogramm PKK (Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga) und zum Familienplanungsprogramm Keluarga Berencana erstreckte und so die gesamte Person in ihren körperlichen, intellektuellen und sozialen Potentialen umfasste. 36 Feith (1980) nannte das New Order Regime dementsprechend "repressivedevelopmentalist". Der indonesische Staat, so lässt sich zusammenfassen, sah seine BürgerInnen als Ressourcen, die in den Dienst der Entwicklung der Nation genommen werden müssen.…”
Section: Modernität / Modernisierungunclassified