CARE GOVERNANCE: ADMINISTRASI PUBLIK DI ERA ANTROPOSEN

Muhammad Ahnaf Nadewa Biyangsa Ahyar; Risma Niswaty; Aris Baharuddin

doi:10.21831/efisiensi.v22i1.79336

CARE GOVERNANCE: ADMINISTRASI PUBLIK DI ERA ANTROPOSEN

Muhammad Ahnaf Nadewa Biyangsa Ahyar, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
Risma Niswaty, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
Aris Baharuddin, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia

10.21831/efisiensi.v22i1.79336

Abstract

Abstrak: Care Governance: Administrasi Publik di Era Antroposen
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan memberikan gambaran konseptual terkait paradigma care governance dan menjelaskan posisi dan peran aktor-aktor non-manusia dalam paradigma care governance. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif-eksploratif dengan jenis penelitian studi pustaka. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini ialah systematic literature review. Teknik analisis data yaitu, reduksi data, penyajian data dan penarikan kesimpulan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan secara konseptual paradigma care governance merupakan paradigma dalam administrasi publik yang berprinsip atau melandaskan praktik-praktik pada kerangka moral berbasis kepedulian dengan tujuan untuk merawat kehidupan manusia dan aktor-aktor lain yang menyebabkan kehidupan manusia menjadi dimungkinkan. Dalam paradigma care governance, publik diberikan pengertian baru sebagai keseluruhan entitas dan bukan hanya sekadar warga negara. Selain itu, care governance juga melihat bahwa aktor-aktor non-manusia dapat berperan secara aktif dalam kegiatan pengadministrasian; baik sebagai focal aktor, aktor mediator, maupun intermediaries aktor. Kontribusi penelitian ini adalah mengenalkan care governance dengan melibatkan aktor non manusia untuk memperluas wacara administrasi publik.

Kata kunci: care governance; administrasi publik; aktor non-manusia; era antroposen; paradigma; actor-network theory

Abstract: Care Governance: Public Administration in the Anthropocene Era
This study aims to explain and provide a conceptual overview of the care governance paradigm and explain the position and role of non-human actors in the care governance paradigm. This study uses a qualitative-exploratory approach with a literature study research type. The data collection technique used in this study is a systematic literature review. Data analysis techniques, namely, data reduction, data presentation and drawing conclusions. The results of the study show that conceptually the care governance paradigm is a paradigm in public administration that is based on or summarizes practices in a moral framework based on care with the aim of caring for human life and other actors that make human life possible. In the care governance paradigm, society is given a new understanding as a whole entity and not just citizens. In addition, care governance also sees that non-human actors can play an active role in administrative activities; either as a focal actor, mediator actor, or intermediary actor. This research contributes by introducing care governance involving non-human actors to expand the discourse of public administration.

Keyword: care governance; public administration; anthropocene era; paradigm; actor-network theory

Keywords

care governance; public administration; anthropocene era; paradigm; actor-network theory

Full Text:

PDF

References

Chandler, D. (2023). Actor Network Theory and Sensing Governance: From Causation to Correlation. Perspectives on Science, 31(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00584

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.

Eckersley, R. (2020). Ecological democracy and the rise and decline of liberal democracy: looking back, looking forward. Environmental Politics, 29(2), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1594536

Edgardo, A. R. (2021). Governance Network Theory Re-examined: Implications of the Research Findings of the Water and Sanitation Sector Governance Network of the Municipality of Tela, Honduras. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 16(3), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.160304

Hanafi, M. (2022). PENGEMBANGAN PARIWISATA MELALUI COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE DI KABUPATEN MAGELANG. Efisiensi: Kajian Ilmu Administrasi, 19(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.21831/efisiensi.v19i1.53447

Inbaraj, M. (2023). Technium and Posthuman Becoming: A Critical Posthumanist Reading of Dan Brown’s Origin. World Journal of English Language, 13(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n8p43

Jaynes, T. L. (2020). Legal personhood for artificial intelligence: Citizenship as the exception to the rule. AI & SOCIETY, 35(2), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00897-9

Johnston, K. (2023). New Public Service Bargain: Time for Paradigm Shift in Turbulent Times? Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 19(SI), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.SI2023.5

Kelly, K. (2010). What Technology Wants (Vol. 37). Penguin Group.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3 ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kurki, V. (2021). Legal Personhood and Animal Rights. Journal of Animal Ethics, 11(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.11.1.0047

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lorde, A. (2007). Sister Outsider:Essays and Speeches. Berkeley: Crossing Press.

Lysaker, O. (2020). Ecological Love: Reflections on Morality’s Existential Preconditions. Dalam Between Closeness and Evil: A Festschrift for Arne Johan Vetlesen (hlm. 55–58). Oslo: Scandinavian Academic Press.

Lysaker, O. (2024). Ecological Democracy: Caring for the Earth in the Anthropocene. Routledge.

Medury, U. (2010). Public Administration in the Globalisation Era: The New Public Management Perspective. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan.

Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (2014). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books Ltd. Diambil dari https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/rce/article/download/1659/1508%0Ahttp://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/qre/article/view/1348%5Cnhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500799708666915%5Cnhttps://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Educa

Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosohpy (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Negri, S. M. C. A. (2021). Robot as Legal Person: Electronic Personhood in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.789327

Raja, M. U. A. (2018). Apa itu Antroposen? Balairung: Jurnal Multidisipliner Mahasiswa Indonesia, 1(1), 6–19.

Ritzer, G. (2005). Encyclopedia of Social Theory (Vol. 1). California: SAGE Publications.

Riyanto, G., Ekomadyo, A. S., Furqon, H. P., Ekklesia, J. M., Akbar, N. Al, Riziq, L. B., … Simanjuntak, M. B. B. (2023). Membaca Latour. Penerbit Antinomi.

Scheermesser, M. (2022). The Pivotal Function of Non-human Actors in the Acceptability of the Body Technology, Actibelt®: a Reconstruction Based on Actor-Network-Theory. NanoEthics, 16(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-022-00415-0

Shim, Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2016). Analyzing China’s Fintech Industry from the Perspective of Actor–Network Theory. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2–3), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.11.005

Shiva, V. (2016). Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace (2 ed.). Zed Books Ltd.

Shiva, V. (2021). Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-being of All. Navdanya.

Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the anthropocene: The great acceleration. Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & Mcneill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene : Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614–621. Diambil dari http://www.jstor.org/stable/25547826%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25547826?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents%5Cnhttp://about.jstor.org/terms

Stone, C. D. (2010). Should Trees Have Standing?: Law, Morality and the Environment (3 ed.). Oxford University Press.

Suri, S. (2023). ECOFEMINISM THROUGH THE LENS OF VANDANA SHIVA: SEEDING WAVE FOR GENDER EQUALITY AT THE HEART OF CLIMATE JUSTICE. REVIEW JOURNAL PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL SCIENCE, 48(2), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.31995/rjpss.2023.v48i01.053

Teittinen, H., & Kaperi, M. (2022). Exploring Dishonest Vulnerability in Digital Finance Platforms — an Actor–Network Theory Approach. International Journal of Business & Management, 10(2). Diambil dari https://iises.net/international-journal-of-business-management/publication-detail-116984

Vries, G. de. (2016). Bruno Latour. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wallenhorst, N. (2022). What Does the Anthropocene Hold for Citizenship? Vierteljahrsschrift Für Wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 98(4), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.30965/25890581-09703063

Wang, H., & Ran, B. (2023). Network governance and collaborative governance: A thematic analysis on their similarities, differences, and entanglements. Public Management Review, 25(6), 1187–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2011389

Waters, C. N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D., Poirier, C., Gałuszka, A., … Wolfe, A. P. (2016). The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science, 351(6269), aad2622. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/efisiensi.v22i1.79336