Esensi Bantuan Pemerintah Kabupaten Badung Terhadap Keberdayaan Masyarakat
Community empowerment is a concept that summarizes the economic development of social values. This concept reflects the new development paradigm, namely "people centered, participatory, empowering, and sustainable". This concept is broader than merely satisfy basic needs or provide a mechanism to prevent further impoverishment (safety net), whose thinking recently been developed as an effort to find an alternative to the concepts of growth in the past. Empowerment aims to encourage the community that is still below the poverty line by collectively involved in the decision-making process, including overcoming the unsatisfied condition that there are filled. Empowerment was also marked by the increasing capacity of the population collectively in managing development organizations independently
Regional SMEs and Competition in the Wake of the Financial and Economic Crisis
The Asian financial and economic crisis had widespread effects, many of which are still in the process of being resolved. While the region consists of many diverse, although closely integrated, economies, a common characteristic is the significance of a sizeable and rapidly expanding SME sector. However, given such diversity, it can be reasonably expected that the SMEs in these economies are at different stages of development, their contributions to the respective economies are different, and policies adopted in these economies as a means of encouraging their development will also diverge. While they may face similar general difficulties such as: access to finance; access to technology; development of human resources; and access to market information, it is unlikely that these difficulties are inherently identical, and hence appropriate policies to stimulate their recovery are also unlikely to be identical across these varying economies. However, what is clear is that these SMEs, in the wake of the financial and economic crisis of 1997/98 and the immense restructuring across the region that is taking place with the objective of producing transparent, efficient and globally competitive corporate sectors, are in a strong position to lead the economic recovery of the region arising from increased business opportunities.
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.