Si Kabayan & Debat Rostow vs Frank-Amin (2): Refleksi Jelang HUT Kemerdekaan RI

Oleh GWS, lulusan Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) yang pernah didapuk menjadi direktur utama sebuah BUMN dan kini memimpin sebuah perusahaan teknologi. Aktif menuangkan tulisan dan pemikirannya tentang isu keindonesiaan, kebangsaan, dan kemajuan negara, meski dengan nama samaran.

Malam itu, mereka tiba di Institute for Historical Economic Debates yang ternyata berada di mansion abad 18 di tepi Lake Geneva.

Aula utama dipenuhi dengan potret ekonom-ekonom besar: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, Joan Robinson.

Yang mengejutkan Kabayan, audiens debat terdiri dari campuran mahasiswa PhD ekonomi dari seluruh dunia, pejabat Bank Dunia (World Bank) dan Dana Moneter Internasional (International Monetary Fund/IMF), menteri keuangan dari berbagai negara berkembang.

Dan—yang paling aneh, beberapa sosok transparan yang mengklaim sebagai "spirits of economic thought."

Moderator resmi adalah Profesor Angus Deaton, pemenang Nobel Ekonomi 2015, tapi dia meminta Kabayan untuk "provide practical perspective from the field."

Professor Deaton membuka acara dengan gaya akademis yang khidmat:

"Ladies and gentlemen, tonight we witness a continuation of one of the most important debates in development economics. Can poor nations develop by following universal stages of modernization, or are they trapped by global structures of dependency?"

Baca Juga: Si Kabayan & Debat Rostow vs Frank-Amin (1): Refleksi Jelang HUT Kemerdekaan RI

Rostow bangkit dengan percaya diri, menyalakan proyektor yang menampilkan diagram tahapan pembangunannya yang terkenal.

"The stages of economic growth are not mere theory—they are empirical observation," Rostow memulai dengan suara tegas.

"Every developed nation has passed through these stages. Britain in the 18th century, Germany in the 19th, Japan in the early 20th, Korea and Taiwan in the late 20th."

Dia menunjuk ke diagram dengan antusias:

"Traditional society is characterized by limited technology and static worldview. Indonesia in 1945 was clearly here—85% agricultural, low literacy, traditional elites. The preconditions for take-off require building education, infrastructure, and entrepreneurial attitudes. This is where many countries get stuck."

"Take-off occurs when savings and investment reach critical mass—typically 10% of GDP—and when a few leading sectors drive rapid growth. Korea achieved this in the 1960s with textiles and steel. China in the 1980s with manufacturing."

Kabayan mengangkat tangan dengan hati-hati: "Pak Rostow, Indonesia sudah investasi besar-besaran sejak era Soeharto. Tapi kenapa take-off tidak terjadi?"

"Excellent question!" Rostow menjawab dengan antusias.

"Indonesia made classic mistakes—invested in the wrong sectors, failed to build human capital, and allowed corruption to undermine institutional development. You cannot skip stages or take shortcuts."

Dia melanjutkan dengan gestur yang meyakinkan:

"Vietnam succeeded because they finally got the sequence right after 1986: education first, then labor-intensive manufacturing, then moving up the value chain. Korea is now in the 'age of high mass consumption' stage with Samsung and LG competing globally."

"The path is universal and available to all nations. The question is whether they have the political will and institutional capacity to follow it."

Andre Gunder Frank bangkit dengan api di mata, diikuti Samir Amin yang siap dengan arsenal data. Suasana aula mendadak tegang.

"Walt's stages theory is not just wrong—it's historically dangerous," Frank memulai dengan suara yang bergema di seluruh aula.

"It treats underdevelopment as original backwardness, when in fact underdevelopment is actively produced by the global capitalist system."

Amin menambahkan dengan data yang menggugah:

"Consider this: in 1960, per capita income in Ghana was higher than South Korea. Today, South Korea is 15 times richer than Ghana. Did Ghana suddenly become 'lazy' or 'traditional'? No—they remained locked in the colonial structure of exporting cocoa beans while importing processed goods."

Frank melanjutkan dengan momentum yang membangun:

"The development of the center requires the underdevelopment of the periphery. When Britain industrialized, it actively deindustrialized India—destroying local textile industries to create markets for British manufactures. When America grew, it kept Latin America as a raw material supplier."

Dia menunjuk ke peta dunia di layar:

"Look at global trade patterns today: Indonesia exports $35 billion worth of palm oil and imports $15 billion worth of processed food. Exports $20 billion worth of coal and imports $8 billion worth of steel. Pola ekstraksi kolonial bergaya baru!"

Amin menggetarkan podium:

"C'est exactement ça!" — lalu menjelaskan dengan passion — "Indonesia's complexity index is -0.41, not because of internal failures, but because the global system needs Indonesia to remain a raw material supplier. If Indonesia started producing smartphones, who would buy Korean and Chinese phones?"

"Vietnam escaped dependency only through revolutionary war and state-controlled development. They rejected the 'Washington Consensus' of free markets and instead used state power to build industrial capacity."

Kabayan bertanya dengan nada bingung: "Tapi Pak Frank, Korea dan Taiwan juga menggunakan state intervention. Kenapa mereka berhasil?"

Frank menjawab dengan tajam sambil menatap Kabayan: "Because they were geopolitical allies of the United States against China. America allowed them to break dependency rules as a Cold War strategy. Indonesia was never given that privilege."

Rostow bangkit dengan wajah merah, sudah tidak bisa menahan diri: "Andre, you're creating excuses for policy failures! Korea succeeded because it invested in education and embraced comparative advantage in labor-intensive manufacturing. Indonesia failed because of corruption, poor governance, and resistance to market reforms."

"Vietnam's growth after 1986 proves my point—they succeeded by abandoning socialist planning and embracing market-oriented development. Classic modernization process!"

Frank membalas dengan data yang membakar: "Walt, you conveniently ignore that Korea's 'market success' was built on massive state intervention! Park Chung-hee's government controlled credit allocation, forced technology transfer, and protected domestic industries for decades. That's not free market—that's state-led development breaking dependency!"

Amin menambahkan sambil berdiri dari kursinya: "And look at Africa—50 years of following IMF and World Bank recipes, structural adjustment programs, trade liberalization. Result? GDP per capita today is lower than in 1980! Your modernization theory has been tested and failed spectacularly."

"Meanwhile, China—which rejected both the Washington Consensus and traditional dependency theory—became the factory of the world. They proved that peripheral countries can break free, but only through massive state intervention and rejecting center-imposed rules."

Kabayan merasa kepalanya berputar seperti mesin cuci rusak. Ini debat tingkat galaksi, sementara dia masih di level tata surya.

Di tengah perdebatan yang semakin memanas, Kabayan bangkit dan mengangkat tangan. Seluruh aula terdiam—bahkan para "spirits of economic thought" berhenti bergumam.

"Pak Rostow, Pak Frank, Pak Amin," kata Kabayan dengan suara tenang tapi tegas. "Saya sudah mendengarkan debat Bapak-bapak. Tapi saya punya perspektif dari lapangan yang mungkin bisa menjelaskan kenapa keduanya benar dan salah sekaligus."

Professor Deaton mengangguk dengan senyum: "Please, Kabayan. The floor is yours."

"Selama ini saya mengira ada satu 'grand theory' yang bisa menjelaskan pembangunan. Tapi setelah berkeliling Vietnam, Korea, Tiongkok, dan belajar di Harvard, saya menyadari yang berikut ini:

"Pak Rostow benar tentang pentingnya tahapan pembangunan dan investasi dalam human capital. Tapi Pak Rostow salah menganggap tahapan itu universal dan bisa diterapkan di mana saja, kapan saja."

"Pak Frank dan Pak Amin benar tentang struktur global yang tidak adil dan pentingnya memutus dependency. Tapi Bapak-bapak salah kalau berpikir dependency adalah takdir yang tidak bisa diubah."

Kabayan berjalan ke tengah panggung sambil membawa tablet yang berisi data perjalanannya. Dia sudah tidak gugup lagi—ini bukan debat akademis, ini sharing pengalaman.

"Izinkan saya bercerita tentang apa yang saya lihat di lapangan:"

"Vietnam berhasil karena mereka menggunakan Rostow's stages secara strategis sambil memutus Frank's dependency chains. Mereka tidak menolak foreign investment—mereka memaksa investors untuk transfer teknologi dan membangun local supply chains."

"Doi Moi 1986 bukan cuma 'embracing market economics' seperti kata Pak Rostow. Itu strategic engagement dengan global capitalism sambil mempertahankan state control atas arah pembangunan—seperti yang ditekankan Pak Frank."

"Korea berhasil bukan karena 'natural progression' tahapan Rostow, tetapi karena mereka secara cerdas memanipulasi dependency structure melalui export-oriented industrialization yang state-guided."

"Park Chung-hee tidak pasif menunggu foreign investment datang. Dia secara aktif menciptakan competitive advantage dalam labor-intensive manufacturing, lalu systematic upgrade ke heavy industry, kemudian ke high-tech."

"Tiongkok membuktikan bahwa size matters dalam breaking dependency. Mereka cukup besar untuk menciptakan domestic market yang bisa mensubstitusi export dependence."

"Reform and Opening 1978 berhasil karena Tiongkok tidak sepenuhnya mengikuti Washington Consensus. Mereka selektif dalam adopsi market mechanisms sambil mempertahankan strategic state control."***

Simak info publik, kebijakan & geopolitik dunia di kanal Whatsapp dan Telegram The Stance.