| dc.description.abstract | This dissertation examines why village democracy and development have not automatically improved rural welfare or reduced poverty. It challenges the linear assumption that democracy produces effective development, development generates welfare, and welfare resolves poverty. The study integrates village democracy, development implementation, governance, welfare, and poverty within a single analytical framework. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Qualitative data were collected through interviews, observations, and village, actor, and poor-family histories. The quantitative stage involved 289 respondents in Gelaranyar, Margahayu, and Pantai Bahagia Villages, using Precision Village Data as the primary database. The findings show that democracy and development affect welfare differently across village contexts. Democracy becomes pseudo (Pseudo Rural Democration) when formal participation is not accompanied by autonomy of choice, equal influence, and meaningful control over decisions. This condition tends to produce Pseudo Rural Development, in which data, deliberation, and planning remain administrative but fail to generate responsive and well-targeted programs. The resulting lost target prevents development from substantively improving welfare and reducing poverty. Village governance acts as a mediating mechanism with three patterns: bridge, when it connects democracy and development to welfare; null mechanism, when it functions administratively without meaningful welfare effects; and barrier, when it obstructs the distribution of development benefits. Rural poverty is also shown to be multidimensional and political-structural, rather than primarily cultural. The dissertation contributes by developing the Village Democracy Index and People’s Welfare Index, formulating the bridge–null–barrier governance typology, and constructing six rural poverty categories. Its main novelty lies in explaining the institutional mechanism through which Pseudo Rural Democration produces Pseudo Rural Development, leading to lost target development, unmet welfare, and persistent rural poverty. | |
