CHAPTER VII
FARM HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD AND COPING WITH CRISIS
A. The Livelihood Condition
Assessment method of the household welfare and poverty has evolved and
been adapted to the dynamic of contemporary development. It has been since 90’s
that livelihood studies are applied as a more comprehensive method to assess
household welfare. Income has been important factor to appraise household level of
welfare and poverty, however livelihood is more than merely synonymous with
income. The dictionary meaning of livelihood is a ‘means of a living’. It directs
attention to the way in which living is obtained. A livelihood comprises of assets
(natural physical, human, financial and social capital) the activities, and access to
these assets that together determine the living gained by the individual or household
(Ellis.2000). Access may vary from place to place due to different role of institutions
and social relations to mediate the access. This makes rural livelihood holds distinct
character to urban livelihood.
The application of livelihood in this study is the combination of assets,
capabilities, and need satisfaction that configure certain living typology. The
elements of assets in this study comprise also access to resources, ownership, and
relations in assets. Arrangements of access to assets cover land renting and
sharecropping, social status and skills. Ownership of livelihood assets concerns
especially with land, implements and machineries. Capabilities are represented by
proxy variables indicating pattern of use resources which comprises among other;
level of income and income security, expenditure of consumptive items, saving,
labour participation, and the use of capital and technology. The element of need
satisfaction is represented by three main variables i.e. coverage of basic needs and
subsistence level, room for wealth accumulation, and social safety network. With the
help of these determinants variables, the in-depth data from interview process is
arranged to classify livelihood condition. According to this livelihood condition,
farm household is then classified into three typologies i.e. better off, reasonable, and
shortage.
A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses
aid shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining tile
natural resource base. The 1998 monetary crisis is considered to be shock factor
disturbing the livelihood condition. With regard to sustainable livelihood, this study
also takes notice on the impact of that period of crisis and study of livelihood coping
to it. More than livelihood and crisis, this chapter is an effort to put together the
elements discussed in preceding chapters with the livelihood approach. The focus
discussion on farm household livelihood and coping with crisis is especially to
provide insight to the fifth research question on the topic of resistance and
vulnerability of farm household livelihood in coping with crisis and gradual change.
This chapter presents the view on livelihood condition, livelihood strategy and life
cycle, the impact and coping responses to crisis.
1. The Assets
In rural agrarian based area, land is the most important asset for livelihood.
The general simplicity is that the larger the size of the land, it will usually lead to a
better livelihood. However, more than the physical size, the consideration on land
quality should make clearer the difference in livelihood If the size is comparable,
then fertile land with regular irrigation should generate better livelihood than infertile
rain-fed land. If land factor is homogeneous, than the decisive factor after land is the
cultivation itself. Food crop cultivation may generate less level of livelihood than
horticulture or commercial cash crops. Table 7.1 indicates that the size of land in
constructing livelihood is varying according to area. However, the landless represent
category of shortage ‘household, either as farm labourer, sharecropper or tenants. It
is only in upland Giriasih shortage household still holds small land. It means that in
area where land is in low quality, small land ownership could not support the decent
livelihood. As usually mentioned in conventional view, the better-off farm
households in four areas are also ‘landowning elite’ holding larger size of farm land.
However the size of ownership among better-off farm household in different area is
not the same. The better-off farmer in Giriasih holds the largest in comparison to the
three other areas. This may stress the importance of considering quality of land size
in rural livelihood study of assets and not to merely concern with physical size.
The second assets in livelihood study concern with ownership of machineries
and implements. This asset highly relates with mode of production. There is a
tendency that more varied and advance agricultural tools and implements much
prevail in lowland horticulture crop production in Tirtohargo. Such area demands
implements for stages of agricultural cultivation i.e. land preparation, water control,
pest eradication, and harvestment. Another horticulture area of Wonokerto, the
agricultural tools for salak cultivation and harvestment are homogeneous and of
traditional nature including among other; scissors, inlay, hoe, and knife. This is
because land preparation take-place once time at the beginning of cultivation and
then it last long years as long as the age of the salak trees. There is almost no pest
eradication and therefore farmers require no sprayer. Salak farm households also do
not require valuable or modern implements to harvest and to handle post harvest
yields. Therefore, there is not yet mechanical, machine operated, or automated
implements that differentiate the category better off and reasonable farmer except of
the number of tools.
Table 7.1 indicates that very limited farmer owns hand-tractor. Diesel driven
water-pump is the second valuable implement Better-off farmers in Tirtohargo
mostly own this implement. The third valuable implement and more widely
distributed among reasonable and better-off farmer is sprayer for insecticide
eradication. In general; horticulture farmers in Tirtohargo own more advanced and
valuable implements than other area. The shortage category of farm household in
Tirtohargo does not have valuable implements. They usually only have traditional
and simple tools like hoe. The better-off farmer also gets some income from renting
out their implements. Ownership of valuable implements may also means that socio-
economic condition of farm household in this area is much better in comparison to
other area. The ownership and access to the instruments may facilitate the cultivation
method and the yield. The table indicates that for the other area, the type of
implements consist of less valuable than water-pump i.e. sprayer, thresher, and
plough.
Renting out implements also take place in Sidoharjo. The implements for
cultivation are less various and less developed than Tirtohargo. However, the gap on
the ownership of implements seems to be distinct in this area. Reasonable farmer
owns only traditional tools. They should borrow or rent sprayer from their better-off
neighbour. The distribution of ownership of implements in Giriasih looks similar to
Sidoharjo. The most developed and valuable implements in this area are sprayer. The
difference lies to the fact that in Giriasih there is no commercialization for
implements. The implements have social orientation and not for renting purposes.
Those who do not own implement then they may borrow it for free from the better-
off farmer or from farmers group association.
Social status has correlation with livelihood typology. The better-off farmers
are usually belonging to reasonable or high level social status as well. In the two
upland areas, formal occupation represents much of the high level social status. Land
ownership comes the second. Teacher or civil servant in upland community gets
peoples respect as having high social status more than large holding. In Tirtohargo,
the better-off farmer does not always have high social status. However they can
never be in low status. Some are reasonable status because they are in young age
group, have never seat a position in village local institution, or work as government
civil services. Similar with Tirtohargo, the better-off farmer in Wonokerto may get
reasonable or high social status. The reasonable status is given to those who are
better off in economic sense but do not have record of being local or village
communal institution. They do not either work as civil service or teacher.
The better-off farmers have some excess of their assets that give them
opportunity to get income from this excess. However there is variation in the asset to
commercialize and the system of access arrangements. In Tirtohargo, the asset to
commercialize is land and implements. In this area, land ownership is relatively
small and has been intensively cultivated. The access arrangements for the landless
and small farmer to make utilize of land is through money-based renting. In Giriasih
land is still available in sizeable amount. There is no landless farmer or tenant to
make use of other’s land. In this village, the asset for gaining additional income
outside cultivation is cattle. The table indicates, that better-off farmers in this area,
provide opportunity for shortage household to raise cattle in partnership mode
through the so-called share breeding. The sharing of livestock may use material or
money. The term of material in this regard, refers to dividing equal share for new
livestock that has been generated. The local term for this is maro anak, which
literally means dividing young cattle. The term of money refers to dividing equal
share of the added value that has been generated since the share-breeding contract
(mara bathi, dividing benefit). In Sidoharjo, the assets for tenancy are valid for both
land and cattle. The system of access arrangements is different with other area
formerly mentioned. The system of land-tenancy is predicated with the term as the
one-fifth (pro-liman) sharecropping. The 3/5 will go for capital, and the 2/5 will be
divided onto two i.e. the owner and the sharecropper.
2. The Capabilities
Level of income as elements of capabilities in livelihood shows varying
between categories of livelihood. The better-off farmer has high category of income.
However the income from agriculture is subject to change albeit it is minor. It
depends on the interwoven of many factors in its line of production that ranges from
input to product and marketing. The type of crops and commodity for instance has
different degree of risk. Although they are in similar group of horticulture crops,
income from shallots is more risky crops than salak snake fruit. The more diversified
cropping, system is considered to provide less risky income than monoculture.
As shown by table 7.1, the gap in income is less severe in upland Giriasih.
The better off farmer has income ranges from reasonable to high. Apart from income,
there is also no distinct picture of materials achievement in Giriasih. The house, for
instance, looks similar one to another in its traditional design. The egalitarian and
non-materialism character of upland Giriasih also appears in the ownership of
valuable goods. Vehicle, for instance, does not show a distinct character between
reasonable and better-off farmer. Ownership of land and cattle are the two indicators
that may indicate the variation in livelihood. The income and material classless
community do not happen in other areas. Giriasih also indicates the egalitarian of
living atmosphere as non-consumptive type of community. As Table 7.1 shows the
better-off farmer has similar pattern of expenditure and consumption with their
neighbour in reasonable category. They renovate their house from wooden and
traditional to be permanent type to be permanent. Some also use ceramic floor tile in
gradual process of construction. They have colour TV but do not see the importance
of refrigerator to make difference with their neighbour. Egalitarian condition of up-
land Giriasih does not seem to prevail in other area. In Tirtohargo, the better-off
farmers show different capabilities as indicated by among other their home
appliances, automotives, and physical appearance of the house. The wealth of salak
farmer in Wonokerto also appears in the house, car, and home appliances. House is
usually big or multi-storied with modern design. It is furnished with TV, refrigerator,
CD/ VCD players set, and the like. All salak farmers have motor-cycle but in general
only the better-off own car.
Saving as a variable of capabilities in livelihood approach show variation
between upland farming and the other two horticulture areas. In commercial
agriculture areas, saving is high among the better off in various income generating
assets like cattle, land, and machine. The saving also takes places in the form of
valuable and non-depreciated goods like gold and jewellery. In this regard, the
process of accumulating happens within this class. For the upland better-off farmer,
find also becomes subject for saving. However, land in upland areas has less
commercial value than in the commercial horticulture areas. It is different because
land is still entitled for its social contents. The land is not rented out in Giriasih
whereas in Sidoharjo, it is also not for rented but for sharecropping. Therefore there
is small income being generated from saving of asset in land that does not bring
better-off farmers in accumulation process. The same case is also valid for cattle.
Saving in the form of cattle still keeps its social contents through share breeding for
their neighbour. As indicated by the table, shortage and reasonable farmer cans get
benefit from better-off farmer through share-breeding process.
Employment status is also important aspect of capabilities. The better-off
farmer generally combines with other non-farm activities. In the two-uplands, most
better off works as government civil service notably teacher. In salak area,
Wonokerto, the better-off farmer combines either with government civil service or
non-government formal sector. It is only in Tirtohargo, where most salak farmers do
not combine with non-farm activities. Employment combination is typical rural mode
of occupation. Not only the better off perform this, but also reasonable and shortage
category of household. However, as the table suggest, the type and quality of job
indicate differentiation. The middle category of livelihood combines agriculture with
more independent self-employing work like trade, artisan, cottage and household
industry, driver, and motorcycle broker- The lowest layer of livelihood combines
agriculture works with low return labour type of work either in agriculture or in non-
agriculture. The type of works includes agriculture labour, construction labour,
sewing labour, and general labour. In upland area, type of labour relates to
agriculture work. Whereas in Tirtohargo it more relates to more urban type non-
agricultural jobs like construction worker and sewing worker.
The common pattern of labour participation is that all better off farmer use
non-family labour. This wage labour is dominant in all mode of agriculture
production. In the second category of livelihood, family takes part in production. The
role of family from reasonable household is dominant in upland horticulture.
Especially in upland Giriasih, family is prime executor of cultivation. Production
activities are important element of capabilities in rural livelihood study. It is
realization of asset for livelihood. Size of land as an asset for livelihood is still
potential to build livelihood condition. In this regard, similar sizes of land may have
different contribution in livelihood due to different farmer choice in production
activities. The table indicates that variation in production activities does not only
happen between areas, but also between livelihood categories The exception in this
case is for Wonokerto where production activities concentrate on monoculture of
snake fruit salak. In general, the characteristic of the better off farm household is to
cultivate income-generating crops whereas the shortage category has orientation on
subsistence crops. This still prevails even in commercial agriculture area like
Tirtohargo. The shortage category of farm household keeps cultivating food crops
and secondary crops. This choice is not merely subsistence reason but also the
unaffordable cost of cultivation commercial crops.
3. The Need Satisfaction
Commercial agriculture brings also materialism. It does reduce social content
of agriculture and shifts toward more money-based system in rural agricultural
community. Land tenancy for instance, has bein shift from share cropping mode
toward renting mode. In commercial area, money-less farmer do not have access to
cultivate land except as labour. This happens especially in Tirtohargo where land-
less should have money to have access in land cultivation. On the contrary, in upland
Sidoharjo, land-less farmer still have access through sharecropping in one-fifth
agreements. As table indicates, in commercial area, the better off farmers show
distinct difference wealth between the belier off and other class in community. The
wealth of better off farmer is observable in physical appearance of the house;
complete and modern home appliances, and vehicles. House of better off farmer is
different with their neighbour. It has modern style aid sometimes double-storey
Home appliances have also been modernized and differ with their neighbour. If the
shortage household still use fuel-wood for their kitchen matter, the reasonable farmer
use kerosene stove, then the better off has already used gas stove. In ownership of
vehicles as part of wealth indication, there is also hierarchy. The shortage has only
bicycle, the reasonable owns motorcycle, then the better off has car. The more
commercialised the area the more distinct livelihood class differentiation. In the less
commercial area like upland Giriasih, the wealth differentiation on the basis of
luxurious goods and housing does not come out.
In basic needs coverage, farm household in commercial area do not have any
difficulty to fulfill it. They can even exceed basic needs. This happens to Wonokerto
salak farmers where the better off and the reasonable has been in the level of
exceeding basic needs. In other area, the reasonable category of livelihood has been
in sufficient category, a little lower than exceed category. In upland less commercial
area like Giriasih. The simple ness of community live style has resulted in the level
of modest fulfillment of basic needs. They have different but simple standard of
basic needs in. comparison to more modern life in commercial agriculture area. In
food, for instance, the better off in upland has similar menu with other neighbour to
eat daily rice, local vegetable, and soybean cake. Once a while they may have egg,
but they-way have meat or chicken in their dish when the wives go to market in
weekly period.
Social network in general is important element of need satisfaction, but not
for the better off. They are out off scheme for social network with emphasis for
subsistence purposes like social safety network (JPS = Jaring Pengaman Sosial,
cheap rice for poor people (raskin = beras untuk penduduk miskin). They also do not
use social network for cultivation purposes like farmer credit (KUT= kredit usaha
tani) to buy agricultural inputs. In Giriasih, the better off farmer provide remittances
for their children in urban areas. As indicated by table, social network also indicates
hierarchy according to different level of livelihood. Better off farmers do not relevant
for social network, they even become provider of social network. Social network is
important source for reasonable farmer especially for education and investment, and
important element for shortage household for (subsistence) food, and education.
4. Shifts And Adjustment
The elements of livelihood are subject to change. The pace of change and
factors may different between individual and area. In commercial area, livelihood has
been much easier to shift than-in subsistence area. It is because the cash and the price
have shaped the line of the production structure. The additional cash invested as
capital either in better or more input, in tools and implements, and also in land may
stimulate the quality and quantity or yield. In contrary, the reduced, loss, or shift in
capital may weaken production structure, yield and income. The second factor is that
commercial area much depends on market demand and purchasing power. When the
purchasing power gets better, the demand will be stimulated to increase as well The
commercial crops may get benefit from it. On the contrary, when the purchasing
power drives down, the demand will be weaken. The result is that the income from
commercial crops will be lessening. This process does not happen in more
subsistence character of agriculture. The change in productions structure is less
dynamic. In this area, the natural process may act as dominant factor in the shift of
livelihood condition. Agriculture relies on family labour. When one member of
family worker leaving home to migrate, or getting old mid withdraw themselves
from the work, this will affect the production process and yield. The change in
livelihood condition may take one between the two forms i.e. a shift or an
adjustment. The term shift in livelihood means to refer the conversion in category,
either step up to higher category or step down to lower category of livelihood
condition. The term of adjustment means to refer to modification within respective
category. It is just the internal process without changing category, but its condition
experience improvement to be better or deterioration to be worsening.
a. Shift-Conversion in Category
Table 7.2 indicates that in every village there is at least one case of a shift in
livelihood condition due to different reason. In Giriasih, a case of shift is from
shortage to reasonable condition. The major factor is due to the addition of wealth
and capital through remittances from children in city. This shortage category of
tamer was used to combine agriculture with petty trader. The remittance is significant
enough. That it can compensate to the withdrawal from petty trader. The family
support through remittance also prevails in Tirtohargo. This remittance has been used
to expand land for cultivation. This has lead to the shift of livelihood condition from
reasonable to be better off. The second case in this area is a kind of occupational
diversification through cross-investment from agriculture income to chicken trader.
This routine has then gradually helped to shift from livelihood condition of shortage
to reasonable.
The opposite course has taken place in Sidoharjo i.e a shift from better off
condition to be reasonable. This happens to a female-headed household that reducing
involvement in agriculture due to becoming old. The withdrawal from agriculture has
resulted to leasing land to other and, therefore, decreasing income from agriculture.
In salak area Wonokerto, the two processes take place. The positive case is the shift
from livelihood category of reasonable to better off. This is because of cross-
investment process. Income from non-farm source has been utilised to expand land
under cultivation. The negative case is a step down category from better off to be
reasonable livelihood condition. This is due to the loss of asset in the form of car. It
used to be employ for transportation work. The expensiveness, of maintenance has
resulted in selling of the asset. The result is that the loss of household income from
non-farm source
b. Modification / adjustment within Category
In Giriasih internal adjustment for improvement happens in reasonable
category of livelihood condition. The source for such process comes from
compensation money of early resignment from urban works. The compensation
money is utilized for buying cattle and for capital to become wood trader. Different
process takes place in Tirtohargo. The major cause is more natural process than.
economy. It relates to the live cycle factor. Children have been grown-up and go for
works. This does not mean only reducing parents burden but parents get also support
from children. The help of children has resulted in improvement of household
livelihood condition. In Sidoharjo, there is a case of farm household in the category
of reasonable livelihood that experiencing improvement. This happens due to saving
from agricultural income in combination with remittance from children in the city are
utilized to expand land, and to diversify, occupation by opening stall / kiosk in local
market.
The variation on the agricultural change indicates that agriculture is relatively
stable. It can suffice household needs and expenses. However, to fasten the process
of welfare improvement the role of non-agricultural income or remittances become
apparent. The non-agricultural sources of income drives has been important to
stimulate welfare improvement in all area.
B. Livelihood Strategy and Life Cycle
1. Livelihood Strategy
Strategy refers to a set of measured handling in following route to achieve
certain objectives. Farm household has some differences in their production
orientation. Even, in similar livelihood condition can show contrasting orientation.
One may already feel satisfy with the current condition, the other is still occupied
with obsession to expand and foster its business. To elaborate the variation on its
orientation, it is important to apply livelihood strategy approach. Livelihood strategy
has differentiated farm household into three different categories i.e accumulation,
consolidation, and survival. (Titus. 2005 White.1976). Accumulation household has
orientation to improve profit and income through expanding and adding production
asset, commercialization, and efficiency of the activities. This type of strategy tends
to be progressive, risk taker, and expansionist. The moderate category is
consolidation. It is different with the former for it gives priority to household
sufficiency, and stability in production asset. This category belongs to the schism of
security first. The third category is attributed with survival to mean maximization of
household own resources in order to fulfill household basic needs. Under the
pressing of this orientation, the survival household tends to avoid any risk of
activities and therefore take a distance from any innovation. Resource maximization,
especially manpower, cannot yet to uplift the household to appropriate standard of
living.
There is significance difference between farm household categories. As indicated by
table 7.2, household in survival category shows having minus value of some
variables. This indicates that reduction and lessening happens to the variables in
order to secure the basic needs. Different with survival strategy, the accumulation
households experience the strengthening in assets, activities, and, accordingly,
wealth. These three elements make dialectical process. The increasing asset in the
form of production land demands more labour and also demands increasing capital
input and technology. The result will be more products with market orientation. The
increasing product and marketing has resulted in increasing income to open room for
wealth accumulation.
2. Livelihoods and Live-cycle
The explanation on livelihood condition and strategy do not always come
from socioeconomic factors. Many wealth conditions may have strong correlation
with natural demographic processes. One important process is the so-called ‘life-
cycle’. Rural community does have considerable value that places life cycle into
important factor to establish rural resistance and resilient livelihood. One stage of life
cycle has different demand on consumption and expenses to other stages. In a young
stage family, for instance, a family with children in primary school, the expenses for
education and child caring has not been yet as large as a family with grown-up
children. However, children do not always mean economic burden like most urban
people may usually see it. In rural community, they may become family labour and
be part of production factor.
Life cycle can be grouped into four categories. These are;
1. the young couple family, it is a young married couple with children in the
elementary school or less,
2. the adult married couple family, it is an adult married couple with children still
attending school of above elementary school enrolment,
3. the old married couple, it is an old married couple with no more children in
school,
4. the cross generation married couple, it is a family consisting of grand children,
their parents, and their grand parents, or just grand parents with grand children.
The study indicates that the dominant type of life cycle is adult family and
cross generation family. It is distributed in all livelihood categories. However, they
are dominant in consolidation category. The cross generation family is interesting
from socio-cultural perspective. It is also special character of eastern, particularly
Java tradition that differentiate it from nuclear base family such as in European
family structure. The table indicates that this has been dominant in upland Giriasih
and to a lesser extent in Sidoharjo. The observation in the two upland areas shows
that many school-age children has been entrusted to their grand parents while their
parents live in the cities or even working abroad. This is the practical way usually
being taken as strategy to cope with the expensiveness of living cost, education cost,
and child caring cost in cities. The same amount of cost is more than enough to do
the same thing in village. There is still excess money if parents send their children to
their grand parents in village. The excess money can form remittances for improving
livelihood condition in rural area. The remittances value will be much higher if the
sources come from working abroad.
There is an indication that those who take this approach are mostly
consolidation household. This is understandable considering that children of
accumulation household in the cities are usually also doing well that they do not send
their children to the grand parents in the village. They can keep and support their
own children to school at the cities for better quality. On the contrary, the survival
category of farm households does not have capability to facilitate appropriate
education and child caring. Cross generation extended family in general dominant in
upland Giriasih and very limitedly happen in commercial agriculture Wonokerto.
This may stress the fact that in commercial agriculture, the household wealth has
been significant. They can afford to facilitate the good living of their children to
stand on their foot. In upland Giriasih, the prevalence of out-migration of young and
educated group is significant. This has led to the labour shortage for agriculture and
other sectors. The depopulation trend and aging can be observed from the number of
senior household. They are just a couple family living with no more children. This
has affected to the declining intensity of land utilization. In upland Giriasih
agricultural land is differentiated into three types. Flat ‘valley’ land or ngare in local
term), is designated for rice field. Sloping area above the valley is called ‘perengan’
it is terraced field and especially for cultivation of secondary crops. The better off
household may cultivate cash crop like tobacco or chili in this field. The third layer
of land classification is called ‘alas' literally means forest. This part is for wood
products and forest production. Out migration process of economically active
population has resulted in the limitation of available labour for cultivation. Aging
process has resulted in the withdrawal of senior labour from agricultural activities.
The result is that agricultural cultivation and labour force has been focused only on
ngare where water is available for rice cultivation. Labour shortage has made the
‘perengan’ no longer being cultivated to grow food and horticulture crops but ‘forest’
woods. This is because growing perennial woods demand less labour and
maintenance. This becomes farm households exit and adaptive choices to labour
limitation. Aging and depopulation through out migration has reduced population
pressures on land and stimulated process of reforestation.
C. The Impact of Crisis
1. Inputs: Availability, Price, and Use
In all research areas, crisis does not give worsening effect on the availability
of seed. Farmers still feel that seed for their cultivation is still available up to the
demanded quantity. The major reason for this condition may be related to the fact
that seeds are not imported. it is all locally produced. The second factor is related to
the seasonality of cultivation period that
Agricultural Production
a. Food Crops
The food crops in agricultural census and survey cover two types i.e. rice
(paddy) and secondary crops. Paddy is differentiated into i.e. wetland paddy and
dryland paddy. The name has already indicated the type of field for growing the
crops as well as the mode of production. Wetland paddy is cultivated in lowland and
irrigated field, whereas dryland paddy is cultivated in upland rainfed field. Secondary
crops encompass grains and cereals, tuber and roots, and beans. The following table
3.9 indicates that from harvested area, paddy is the most dominant type of food
crops. The main source of lowland paddy in DIY is Sleman. The harvested area of
paddy in Sleman is 52,4% of total area in DIY. The capacity of its production
supplies 41,4% of total paddy production in DIY. However, the productivity of
paddy in Sleman is slightly lower than productivity in Bantul and Kulonprogo. With
regard to dryland paddy. Gunungkidul is almost the sole producer of dryland paddy.
The harvested area is 98,1 % of total area of dryland paddy in DIY and the
production is 97,8% of total dryland production in DIY. Dryland paddy has
reasonably important position in food production. One third (29,3%) of paddy
production is dryland whereas the rest two third is lowland paddy. However, most of
dryland paddy is for one year round self-consumption (subsistence).
The second important food crop is maize. The harvested area of maize is the
second after paddy. The primary producer of maize is Gunungkidul. The share of
harvested area of the regency is 59,82% whereas the contribution of production is
74,60% of maize in the D1Y. However, the productivity level of maize in
Gunungkidul catches only half of other area. This stresses the agro-ecological
condition of the area which is less favourable for agricultural production. Unlike
production of dryland paddy which is kept for self-consumption of people in
Gunungkidul, maize is marketed for cash. The rest one fourth of production is
distributed in another three regencies.
The third important crop, as indicated by the size of harvested area and
production, is cassava. The proportion of harvested area in Gunungkidul is 83,27%.
It contribute to 72,77% of production of cassava in DTY. Cassava has been
important Food crop for people Gunungkidul, it was used to be the main dish for
people in Gunungkidul during the period of malaise and agricultural stagnation up to
1960’s. However, as in the case of maize, agricultural land productivity in the
regency is lower than the other three regencies. The productivity of cassava is almost
half of other regency cassava productivity. The fourth important food crop is
soybean. Gunungkidul regency seems to establish as agricultural area for food crop.
After dryland paddy, maize, and cassava that dominates the food crop production in
DIY, Gunungkidul also major producer of soybean. The proportion of harvested area
constitutes 79,7% of soybean harvested area in DIY, whilst the production share is
73,5 % of soybean yield in DIY. The same problem with the formerly discussed
foodcrops production in Gunungkidul is that in productivity is the lowest in
comparison to other regency in DIY. Peanut is the fifth important food crop in DIY.
The rest food crops shown in table have very limited harvested area and production.
These are; sweet potatoes. green peanuts, and cantel. Gunungkidul also leads in
production of peanuts. The proportion of harvested area is 70,8% of total harvested
area in DIY whereas the share of production is 66,35%. The land productivity of
peanuts in Gunungkidul is the lowest in DIY, although the difference is not as high
as the former four discussed food crops. This again stressed the fact that
Gunungkidul is more specialised in food crop cultivation.
b. Vegetables
There are two vegetables in DIY, which have exceptional size of harvested
area and value of production. Table 3.10 shows that harvested area of chili is 1.974
ha with production value worth of 16,499 ton, whereas harvested area of shallot is
1.795 ha and production value of 21,514 ton. They are exceptional in comparison
with harvested area of other vegetables which have size less than 1000 ha. The table
indicates that Bantul is the highest harvested area of chili (41,1%). However, the
cultivation of chili is not only widely distributed among the four regencies, but in
each regency the harvested area of chili is dominant. In Kulonprogo and Sleman, the
harvested area of chili is the highest among vegetables. In Bantul it is the second
after shallot whereas in Gunungkidul it comes the second after string bean. The
sizeable harvested area of chilli may suggest that this vegetables becomes important
source of agriculture income in DIY. The other vegetable in the first category of
highest harvested area is shallot. Different with chili with tend to be distributed, there
is no shallot cultivated in Sleman. Shallot is highly concentrated in Bantul up to
proportion of 74,7%. The rest one fourth is divided into 19.6% in Kulonprogo and
5.4% in Gunungkidul. The second vegetables are those having harvested area less
than 1000 ha but above 500 ha. They are string bean, Chinese cabbage, and spinach.
The third group of vegetables concerns with harvested area between 100-500 ha.
These vegetables are kidney beans, swamp cabbage, leek, and cucumber. The rest
vegetables are belonging to the least harvested are that are below 100 ha. These are
tomato, green bean, cabbage, and potato. Sleman and Kulonprogo have some
vegetables with large scale harvested area, but the size is lower compare to especially
Gunungkidul. Each of these two regencies concentrates on four main commodities if
harvested area is concerned. However they may be specialised area due to dominant
in production of certain crop. Kulonporogo is almost the sole producer of leek.
Sleman is major producer of Chinese cabbage.
From area point of view it can be assumed that there are area differentiation
according to mode of production. The specialization area is represented by Bantul
which tend to concentrate on chili and shallot. The diversification area in vegetables
is represented by Gunungkidul where several commodity is cultivated in sizeable
area this encompasses string bean, shallot, spinach, kidney beans, Chinese cabbage
and swamp cabbage. The problem is that the productivity is low. This makes their
share of yield is lower than other regency that has smaller harvested area. This fact is
in line with conventional views that the more specialised the area, the more
production tends to be commercialise. In contrary, the more diversified the mode of
production, the less commercialised the production orientation (Hinderink and
Sterkenhurg, 1987; Maurer, 1997)
c. Fruit Crops
There are two types of Fruit crops i.e. perennial and non-perennial type& The
cultivation and treatment of perennial fruit trees have not yet been as intensive as
non- perennial fruit crops. In fact, there is only limited number of non-perennial fruit
crops that are cultivated and treated in intensive form like the case of commercial
horticulture. From number of fruit tree, salacias/ salak is the most leading fruit tree in
DIY. As table 3.11 indicates that the difference in number of’ trees between salak
and the other fruit trees is sizeable. There is no tree that can reach 1 million stalks,
however salak stalks amount to 2,9 million. The interesting figure of salak is that it is
solely concentrated in Sleman area. However, the leading in production quantity is
not salak, it is only less than half of total production of banana in DIY that reach
53,290 tons. The interesting figure with regard to banana is that it widely distributed
among the four regencies. Although the large number of banana tree prevails in
Gunungkidul. From number of tree, banana is the second after salak. The difference
between banana and salak relates to the intensity of cultivation. Salak is cultivated in
intensive mode. Furthermore, it even replaces paddy and converts rice field into
salak orchard. Banana is not prime fruit tree. It is almost rarely being cultivated in
specially treated arable plot. Mango is the third leading fruit in DIY with respect to
number of tree as well as production. It also tends to be distributed to all four
regencies especially with regard to the yield. The larger part of mango tree is in
Gunungkidul (55.3%). However, the productivity of in this regency is lower than
Bantul and Sleman. This makes the production of mango tends to be widely
distributed. As the case of banana, mango is usually cultivated not in intensive sense.
A farmhouse may have two or three mango trees in their yard or orchard,
nevertheless it is rarely cultivated in special plot in sizeable number.
Salak, banana, and mango is the first category of dominant fruit tree in DIY.
The second category between less than 200 and above 100 stems trees encompass
among other papaya (184,971trees), polybemal (170,257 trees) ramboostan (170,151
trees), guava (157,214), and pineapple (156,237 trees). Except of pineapple, these all
trees are usually not being planted in intensive mode in purposely-designated plot
and in large number of tree. This may provide insight that the dominant mode of
production of fruit trees and crops is diversification. This is performed through less
intensive input and 1ow maintenance. The result is that productivity is low.
E. Cropping Combination
The meso level analysis of agricultural development is performed to see the
spatial distribution and cropping pattern in DIY. The unit analysis for this analysis is
village whereas the variable is types of crops including food crops, horticulture, and
plantation crops. As has been discussed in the research method, the analysis is
performed through factor analysis. There are 28 kinds of crops as input for factor
analysis. The result of gradual reduction has extracted four components which are
considered to have correlation to each other. The findings of the spatial variations
indicate that the cropping pattern in DIY can be grouped into four (4) major crops
combination which are then labeled as div-upland food crop cultivation, commercial
community plantation, commercial horticulture and community plantation, and
commercial horticulture. The following table shows component matrix that justifies
this observation.
The spatial distribution of this cropping combination is presented in the sub-sequent
thematic maps (Figure 3 – 6)
1. Dry Upland Food Crops
The first cropping combination that resulted from data processing and
presented in Figure 3 is food crops. To be specific, it is cropping pattern of upland
food crops as opposite to lowland food cropping. The prevalence of the upland food
crop cultivation almost exclusively characterizes the dry up-land Regency of
Gunungkidul. The table shows that among the crops constituting each food crop
category, cassava and upland rice prevail more and correlate more with each other
than with corn. As the name indicates, upland rice is less water demanding mid
therefore suitable for a dry upland area such as Gunungkidul. It is usually planted at
the beginning of rainy season for subsistence purposes. This food crop is not so
important in a commercial sense. Upland rice is seldom to be traded. Larger part of
the yield is to fulfill self-consumption. Only very limited portion, that is the
consumption excess if available is for sale or for barter with other goods. Upland rice
has functions more as domestic goods than commercial goods. The harvest will be
stored for household consumption up to next year’s harvesting period. The role of
domestic goods of rice also concerns with the provision of seedlings for the next
cultivation.
The second typical dry upland boil crops after upland rice is cassava. Table
3.12 shows that cassava and upland rice has strong correlation. In lowland areas,
cassava is not a preferred crop for cultivation because it has some economic and
ecological limitations, such as:
1. It has low commercial value,
2. It competes with other more valuable crop, and
3. It is environmentally considered negative because it decreases soil fertility.
In Gunungkidul Regency, cassava is still considered as one of the crops with
some potential. Formerly it was planted as main staple food for self-subsistence. In
1980’s the green revolution has been successful to generate sufficient rice yield. The
sufficient national level of rice production and the changing food preferences has
removed cassava from being the main dish on the menu of the people in the regency.
Nowadays, cassava is planted for commercial purposes. Although it has a relatively
low commercial value, it has some comparative advantages since it is suited to the
agro-physical characteristics of the regency. Cassava is drought resistant, easy to
grow, demands almost no inputs and treatment, and, therefore, does not require
farmers to spend cash. Nowadays it’s commercial value increases with the opening
opportunity to export to Japan and Taiwan for cattle feeder. The export has then
increased and stabilized the value of cassava. This cassava export channel has
performed important role in protecting farmer’s income to fall due to monetary crisis
in Indonesia in 1998. Another and equally important aspect of Cassava relates to the
provision of vegetables from tile multiple harvested leaves, either for home
consumption or for sale.
2. Commercial Community Plantation
The second cropping combination as presented in table 3.12 consists of
commercial community plantation including coffee, snap beans, cloves, and cocoa.
The distribution of combination of these four crops, as presented in figure 4, seems
to be in opposition with the distribution of the first cropping combination i.e. dry
upland food crops as previously discussed. Considering that distribution of the
upland food crops relates to the unfertile land, then as opposite this second cropping
combination indicates that the distribution of commercial community plantation
covers areas with better land quality. As presented in figure. 4, the distribution of the
crops tends to dominate the upland areas except of calciferous upland Regency of
Gunung Kidul. These among others encompass the western part of DIY stretching
north to south along Menoreh mountain range. It also widely spreads around the
sloping part northern part of DIY on the foot slope of Merapi mountain. The
distribution commercial community plantation tendency along the upland areas differ
from the former upland food crops. The term upland in this case differs with the dry
up-land as discussed in the first cropping combination in the sense that this category
has better land fertility than the first. The crops that belong to this farming
combination, coffee, snap beans, cloves and cocoa, have already indicates that it
demands better land fertility than the first category especially upland rice and
cassava. The figure also shows that the spatial distribution has certain concentration
in the fertile up-land areas of the DIY where the altitude, climate and agro physical
conditions are most suitable.
In Sleman Regency this particular farming combination has a strong
prevalence throughout the districts located at the foot slope of the Merapi Volcano.
These encompass sub-regencies of Turi, Pakem and Cangkringan. These districts,
especially Turi and Pakem, have been discusses formerly to shows dominant
horticulture cultivation. Turi is already well known as horticulture production centre
of salaccias (salak) whereas Pakem is known as producer of horticulture in forms of
vegetables. This indicates that the area where the commercial community plantation
prevail is that the areas that endow not only good land fertility but also good water
availability.
In Kulonprogo Regency, commercial community plantation dominates the
landscape of the Menoreh Hill range encompassing, Girimulyo, Samigaluh,
Kalibawang and Kokap districts. This area is situated in western part of DIY. In
addition, this farming combination also prevails in major parts of Sentolo districts.
Some parts of this district are also characterised with hilly physiography. It might be
assumed therefore that this second cropping pattern prevails in this upland part of the
area. In upland Gunungkidul regency, this farming combination is concentrated in
the northeastern part of the regency i.e. in parts of the districts of Semin, and
Ponjong. The similar characteristic of upland commercial community plantation also
prevails in Bantul Regency in the sense that this cropping dominantly governs the
upper part of the area. This covers districts of Sedayu, and districts of Imogiri,
Dlingo and Piyungan, which are situated in the eastern upland and stretched from the
north to the south.
It is also interesting to note that this community plantation crops also prevail
in some part of lowland area. These are especially in the middle part of the province
and some mart of coastal area. The cultivation of these crops out from the upland
areas indicates the process of spreading and adoption of commodity. The information
collected from resource person in this respect shows that the production and the
productivity in these areas are not as good as the upland production. This is
importantly due to the micro-climate of the lowland mid coastal area is less suitable
to support the yield.
3. Commercial Horticulture and Community Plantation
The third cropping combination as the result of factor analysis consists of
eggplant, chili, and tobacco. According to crops classification of Central Bureau of
Statistics eggplant and chili are in the group of horticulture, whereas tobacco belongs
to community plantation. These crops are generally cultivated for commercial
purposes. Very limited yield portion may be taken for self-consumption. On this
basis, this third cropping combination is labeled as commercial horticulture and
community plantation. From table 3.13 it can be observed that among this cropping
group, eggplant and chili more correlate with each other than with tobacco. Both
crops have a high commercial value, especially their hybrid types. The hybrid type of
eggplant is called with Japanese eggplant whereas the hybrid type of chill is called
hot-beauty chili. Both crops ate one-season horticultures with multiple harvests. The
crops demand significant capital investments and intensive treatment that makes the
mode of cultivation of these crops to be inputs intensive.
Map of figure 5 shows that the spatial distribution of this cropping
combination is more prevail in the middle pail of DIY. Chili, eggplant and tobacco
are dominant in Sleman and Bantul Regencies than other parts of the DIY. As
discussed in chapter three on physiography of DIY, this is fertile area and provided
with availability of water resources for cultivation. In Sleman Regencies, these crops
are concentrated along the line of spring-belt of the Merapi volcanic foot slope where
water flows a whole year round. This cropping combination lies in a less steep part
of the area and below the previously discussed second cropping combination i.e. the
up-land commercial community plantation. In Bantul, these commercial horticulture
and community plantations tend to dominate the eastern part of the area which seems
to cluster along the Opak River. As the case of distribution of the crops in Sleman
Regency, the closeness distribution to river indicates that a year round water
availability and the soil fertility facilitates the crops cultivation.
4. Commercial Horticulture
The fourth cropping combination extracted by principal component analysis
as presented in Table.3.13, refers to combination of shallots and garlic. Both crops
are commercial, being cultivated for gaining income from the yield. On this basis,
the fourth cropping combination is attributed as commercial horticulture. The
distribution of this cropping combination shows different pattern with the first three
cropping combination. The least dominant prevalence is in Sleman Regency i.e the
northern part of DIY toward Merapi Volcano. Sleman regency, therefore, is much in
favour of the second i.e. upland commercial community plantation and the third
cropping combination i.e. commercial horticulture and community plantation. The
relative absence of shallot and garlic in Sleman Regency might be due to humidity of
the area that is insufficient to support these crops to be properly grown.
Like Sleman, the distribution of this fourth cropping takes the area that
different with the second and the third. Cultivation of shallot arid garlic take place in
the middle part of Bantul toward southern direction reaching the coastal area. In fact
the tendency of dominating coastal area may he observed from the distribution of
these commercial horticultures as presented in figure 6. Apart from coastal area of
Bantul, these crops also govern the southern coastal of Kulonprogo Regency. It may
mean that coastal agro-ecosystem seems to facilitates better grown for shallot and
garlic. The discussion on the variation and complexity of farming types has provided
some information that;
1. Although it is taking place in a relatively small and densely populated area,
the DIY agriculture is highly diversified, and
2. In spite of the limited agricultural land resources, the types of dominant
cropping in DIY represent commercial cultivation.
3. Combining the first and second insights, this means that DIY development of
agriculture is driven toward two currently important development orientation
viz agricultural commercialisation and diversification.
F. Agricultural Resources
As far as data availability concern, elements related to agriculture resources
analysis consist of; agricultural land, farmer organizations, agricultural equipment
and technology, and agricultural services and extension. Agricultural land is
specified into variables of size and type of land i.e. irrigated land and two times
harvesting land. The detail variables for equipment covers two wheels tractors,
eradicators, water pumps, and agriculture product processing machines. Agricultural
service and extension consist of variables on village cooperative unit (KUD), agro-
input kiosk, seedling house, demonstration plots, and markets (semi and permanent
markets). The factor analysis on the agricultural resources has explored 19 variables.
With a gradual exclusion of variables having a less significant correlation, the
assumed final combination of agricultural resources combination is 5 variables
divided into 2 component factors as presented in following table.
As shown by the table, there are two groups of factors which have strong
internal correlation. The first combines agricultural equipment with agricultural land
quality, whereas the second combines two agricultural equipments. These two factors
are then labeled as;
1. Wetland agriculture factor
This factor combine three variables with strong correlation, these are percentage
of irrigated land to total agriculture land, percentage of two times harvesting area
to size of wetland, and percentage of two-wheels tractors to agriculture
household
2. Agriculture technology factor
This factor is combination of percentage of eradicator tools to agriculture
household, and percentage of water pumps to agriculture households.
The spatial distribution of the pattern and the combination is presented in the
thematic maps in figure 7 and 8.
1. Wetland Agriculture Factor
Wetland agriculture may represent the quality of land as well as the quality of
irrigation facilities. Such condition may facilitate more than one time production
harvesting. That is why it has strong correlation with the harvesting variables.
Successful agricultural transformation during the green revolution period has been
acknowledged to take place especially in such wetland rice cultivation. Such area is
also considered to be dynamic and adoptive to the introduction of innovation. Hands
tractor is among the agricultural equipment being widely spread in this area.
Therefore, the prevalence of two wheels tractors shows a high correlation with these
two land quality variables. The thematic map in figure 7 indicates that this combined
factor prevails more dominantly in the lowland part of DIY. This area is in the
middle part of the DIY encompassing major part of Regency Sleman and Bantul, and
south eastern part of Kulonprogo Regency. The area stretches out from Merapi
slopes of the northern part of DIY and reaches out southern Bantul coastal area of
Indian Ocean. In the dry up-land of Gunungkidul, this factor is very limited, the only
exception is a small spot around the basin area in district of Karangmojo. This
suggests that modernization and technological advancement is eventually being
applied in lowland fertile and better irrigated which already densely populated areas
than up-land areas.
2. Agriculture Technology
As far as the correlation matrix in table 3.13 concerns, eradicator tools have a
strong relation with water pumps. It shows a negative correlation with irrigated land
resource and most especially with the two wheels tractor. This factor is not widely
distributed nor constitute a compact pattern like the previous factor. However, some
information can be obtained from this finding. This type of agricultural technology
tends to relate with the upland and coastal agriculture than to lowland agriculture.
Observation from thematic map in figure 8 supports this assumptive conclusion. The
lowland area surrounding Yogyakarta Municipality is in clu5ter of low category. The
factor apparently dominates the upland Gunungkidul especially in the middle part,
upper part of Sleman, and also Kulonprogo Regency. It also looks to cluster along
the southern coastal area especially in Kulonprogo and Bantul Regency. In coastal
agriculture in the southern part of the DIY water pumps seem to be important for
drainage purpose so to avoid flooding of the area. In the dry up-lands, water pumps
are importantly present in view of overcoming problems of water scarcity.
From the above discussion on agricultural resources, it appears that the
lowland middle part of DIY is potential agricultural area for it has good quality of
land and supported with better irrigation facility leading to production intensity. It
should be noted that land ownership in this area is already small. Moreover the area
is being situated in a densely populated part of DIY and therefore it has potential to
intensify the agricultural land conversion leading to the decreasing agriculture
production. The shift on the mode of production has already taken place as
observable in the application of hand tractor. It may imply the shift toward more
capital than labour intensive, meaning that labour replacement take place. This
modernization and the more capitalistic type of farming may stimulate to the
changing tenurial system. In General, the technological application varies with the
agro-physical condition and dominant farming type of the region.
5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
Within the smallness of the area, DIY shows great agricultural diversification
and commercialization within prevailing phisiographical variation of the area. This is
shown by spatial pattern of cropping combination. The result of this analysis may be
taken as initial steps to formulate functional zoning for further development. This
may help to identify competitive commodity within specific area. Homogeneity and
the widely spread commodity has resulted in disadvantage due to over-supply during
harvesting season may push down the price for the commodity. There is a tendency
that mass of farmers may adopt and follow to cultivate the pt-oven marketable
commercial crops. Therefore it is important to manage this natural process into
spatially structured commodity area.
Agriculture sector maintains to contribute to economic development equity of
the area through employment absorption but not to economic growth. The index
intensiveness of agriculture in DIY is low that brings it into conventional views as
slow growth sector and contribute low value added. The dynamic of development
process in DIY much prevail in lowland fertile area. ‘The shift of population density
intensely increases in this area more than urban municipal area. It creates
intensifying pressure to agriculture and land conversion. Agriculture in DIY
therefore is also subject to experiencing the law of diminishing return. The yield of
agriculture is going to diminish due to the cultivation area gets smaller and
fragmented. This condition should stimulates to identify possible area for agricultural
extensification and to strengthen the development of upland agriculture where the
land is reasonably available and away from land fragmentation and conversion.
The development in lowland is more dynamic and provides better prosperity
than other area. Considering that agriculture contributes more to employment
opportunity than to economic growth it may means that the source of prosperity in
lowland does not come from agriculture. It is important, therefore, to make micro
level study to clarify the finding at meso regional level.
With regard to the effect of agricultural development in rural socio-economy
welfare, there is objection to the view that social stratification has been more
pronounced in rural area. There is not enough evidence to claim the general tendency
of economic classes polarization due to introduction of agriculture technology, or
increasing deprivation of rural poor as a result of labour displacement from
agriculture. The majority of farm labourer and small farmers has been considered to
make improvement in their economic condition. During the period of 70’s and 80’s,
overall income per capita of rural household experiences meaningful improvement.
This is reflected in the increasing income and expenditure. In general, the income
disparity and discrepancy between socio-economy classes in rural area has been
much lessening.
b. Region Problems
Before monetary crisis in 1998, the Indonesia economic development has
been appreciated as achieving impressive performance. For about 25 years, the
Indonesia economy has annual growth rate above 6%. There are not so many
developing countries that capable to achieve such economic performance and sustain
it for reasonably long period. Considering that the national economic performance is
the aggregate of regional economy, and therefore, the underlying assumption is that
the variation in economic growth may prevail at regional level or even lower level.
Apart from regional hierarchical perspective, sectoral differentiation may also valid
in appraising economic growth. Different economic sectors may also shows different
performance and contribution in economic sectors.
The position of agriculture in development is sometimes miss-
understandable. The economic growth is interpreted to shift agriculture to fade away.
A country or region experiences economic development when the share of
agriculture in income and employment decreases due to being out-competed with
industry and service sectors. In short, there is no country or region being labelled
modern, developed, or industrialized due to its agriculture sector performance.
Economic growth is also mistakenly admitted to inversely effect and sacrifice the
agriculture sector. The frequently mentioned example in this respect deals with
increasing agriculture land loss and the process land conversion to non-agricultural
uses.
The agricultural census data indicates that within 3 18.580 hectare of the DIY
area, wetland rice area covers an area of 63.458 hectares or about 20% of total area.
The agricultural census of 1993 shows that the rice wetland lefts to be 61.497
hectare. On the contrary, dry land which covers land for building and its surrounding
has grown from 83.157 hectare (26.1%) to be 87.475 hectares (27.5%). This means
that, the process of agricultural land conversion to non-agricultural designation has
been taking place in Yogyakarta. The dominant force behind this conversion is to
fulfill the needs of increasing number of population for settlements and its supporting
infrastructures and services facilities. It is assumed that agricultural intensification
may become the visible respond for such increasingly limited land.
More than conversion of agricultural land, the effects of economic growth on
the agricultural production also reach production orientation. The orientation shills
from subsistence toward commercialization. The major drive of this change is due to
increasing product demand and purchasing power as a result of integration of rural
economy into wider market economy. Moreover, the economic growth of 1970’s is
aided by increasing foreign exchange from exporting oil. This period is known and
marked by oil boom. It provided path for toe government to perform investment and
construction of rural infrastructures. Apart from employment absorption, the
construction of rural infrastructures and socio-economic facilities has important
contribution in the integration of rural economy in wider commercial market. At
regency to rural level, and even household unit level, the effect of economic changes
may have different responds and spatial patterns. It is therefore interesting to find-out
such variation of spatial pattern of agricultural changes.
Agriculture is accounted for main income of majority of population residing
in rural area. However the degree of importance is varying between places. Farmer’s
response to agricultural development and commercial market stimulant shows great
variation. It is important to study decision-making process of agricultural changes at
individual farmer and household level. Female has significant role in agricultural
production and changes. In some cases, female farmer and labour spend longer
working hours than male. They contribute important role in agricultural development
and in their household decision making process. In consequence, they may also be
affected for any change in agricultural production. Position and contribution of
female farmers and labourers in agricultural activities and decision-making
The research on me agricultural development becomes more interesting to he
conducted in Yogyakarta. This is due to within its relatively small area as compared
to other provinces in Indonesia. Yogyakarta shows a great variation and complexity
of physical and environment. Moreover, agriculture in this area has existed for long
period and play important role for large proportion of population and for regional
development.
2. Objective of the Study
This study is carried out in the Province of Yogyakarta Special region (DIY).
Among the provinces in Indonesia, the DIY is the smallest i.e. about 3.169 square
kilometers (0.16%?) In spice of the smallness of the DIY, the area is an interesting
one since it is situated between the sea and the active volcanic mountain of Mount
Merapi. Consequently the phisiography of the DIY is varied and leads to different
farming systems. The percentage of population residing in rural areas is 73,4%
among which 48% engages in agricultural activity. The average size of land-
ownership is 0.25 ha per head of household. This size is considered to be under the
standard ownership to keep sustainable productivity, which is assumed to be around
0.4 ha. The DIY is a region displaying a continuum in rural-urban development as
well as different kinds of agro-economic systems. The systems react differently to
the opportunities and constraints created by increasing levels of urbanization, rural-
urban interaction, and population pressure upon resources, as well as to the various
government programs for agricultural development. As such, the DIY might be
perceived as interesting laboratory for what will happen in other densely - populated
areas in the shadow of growing urban economies.
On the basis of this background, the main objective of the research is to
understand the varying pattern of agricultural development in the DIY, and the effect
of the development on the rural firm households livelihood and rural areas at large.
The specification of this main research objective helps to clarify the scale and scope
of the research. The operational breakdown of the main objective is as follow:
1. to formulate and to explain the spatial pattern and regional topology according to
agricultural characteristic,
2. to assess the main production structure and processes in the different farming
types and to explain the various effects of agricultural dynamics and outcome on
the living conditions of population
3. to explain the variation of farmer responses and decision making process to
opportunity and stimulants for agricultural change and innovation.
4. to appraise the role of supporting services and infrastructures in agriculture and
the role of government policy and intervention in rural agricultural development
5. to analyze resistance and vulnerability of farm household livelihood in coping
with crisis and gradual change.
3. Research Questions
The discussions on the research background, and research objectives, have
provided basis for the formulation of research question. This research question may
function as guiding question to formulate research methods. The main research
objective is to focus on what varying pattern and the structure agricultural
development in the DIY, and the impact of the development on the rural farm
households livelihood and rural areas at large. This main objective is then specified
into more operational research questions as follows;
1. What patterns of the agricultural cropping can be identified and how this pattern
is distributed at meso level of DIY Province and at four different agro-ecosystem
areas?
2. What are variation on the main production structure and processes in the
different agro ecosystems types and how the effects of the different agricultural
dynamics and outcome on the living conditions of respective rural community?
3. What are the variation of farmer responses to opportunity and stimulants for
agricultural change, and how the process of making decision to adopt any
induced innovation?
4. What is the role of supporting services and infrastructures in agriculture and
what has been the role of government policy and intervention in rural
agricultural development?
5. What are the impacts of crisis as sudden pressure of changes on different fanning
activities and different household category, and how they show varying degree
of adaptability resistance and vulnerability in coping with crisis and gradual
change?
4. Justification for the Usefulness of the Research
The formal usefulness of the research is the basis for the writing of
dissertation as part of the requirements to acquire PhD degree at the Post Graduate
Program Gadjah Mada University Yogyakarta. The practical usefulness of the
research result is to contribute to the scientific development and the development of
community at large. Contribution to science is especially in the field of agricultural
and rural development. The assessment of the spatial pattern of agricultural
development may reflect the integration of rural area into wider market as well as the
changing market preferences that leads to agricultural commercialisation. The micro
level study on and farm household respond to agricultural change and development
and decision-making process may contribute to approach and theoretical conception
about agricultural development. Moreover, the contribution may come from
methodological aspect of the research as well as the empirical findings. Comparing
four villages located in different agro-ecosystems setting may provide more
comprehensive views than focusing on one research area. The research may also
provide useful source for comparative study in the same field. Furthermore it may
work as stimulant and inspiration for thither research in the similar and related
subject. For the community at large, the research may provide advantage through
government institution that responsible from development planning and
implementation, this is especially related with better and wider understanding on the
effect of agricultural change and development on the farm household livelihood.
C. Theoretical Views
1. Agricultural Development
One universally recognized feature of structural economic change is that as
countries develop, the proportions of GDP and employment accounted for by
agriculture decline. This shift stands to reason, for improved living standards entail a
change in consumer demands through an increasing personal consumption of good
and services other than food. A concomitant rise is necessitated in the proportion of
human aid other resources allocated to non-agricultural production. This economic
transformation indicates a change in the relative importance of the different
economic sectors i.e. the shill from predominantly agricultural economics to one
dominated by the industrial sector and the service sector with related to sectoral
shifts in income or labour force (Bilsborrow and Georges, 1994; Stevens and Jabara,
1988).
In the development process of a country, agriculture plays a major role.
According to Kuznets (as quoted by Colman and Nixon, I 978: 32), the contribution
or agriculture to development covers aspects of product contribution, factor
contribution, and market contribution. Product contribution refers to condition
whereby an increasing amount of food is supplied to the expanding non-agricultural
population, and industrial crops are produced as a basis for processing industry.
Factor contribution means that agriculture supplies the rest of the economy with
labour and experiences a net outflow of capital. Market contribution’ is that whereby
agricultural revenue from cash sales (domestically and for exports) creates a demand
for products of the industrial sector, agricultural exports also create a flow of foreign
exchange which can be used to purchase capital items from abroad.
These contributions imply that a large and increasing domestically produced
agricultural surplus is a necessary condition for successful and interlinked economic
development. Agriculture thus is an important precondition for national
development. The currently rich countries were favoured with accesses to ample and
cheap food supplies during the 18th and 19th centuries at the start of industrialization
(Colman and Nixon, 1978). In this respect, it is the existence of a relatively
homogeneous agricultural structure in the initial stages of industrialisation process
that facilitates the spread of technological progress and makes possible growth with
equity. (Schejtman, 1994)
2. Approaches to Agricultural Change
Agriculture can be studied in a number of ways, and even the simplest farm
comprises a large number of components and types of relations among them. Social
sciences concentrates on the components of the human sub-system, for instance cm
the rules that govern resource use (e.g. land tenure), on labour intensity and
availability, on human demography, on communication and diffusion of innovation,
on the relation between social and economic units, on consumption variables, on
decision making, and on links between these features and the environmental
subsystems (Brush and Turner. H, 1987).
The term of agrarian change implies a change in the total system of
relationships with respect to agrarian economics and societies. This system includes
technological and environmental factors relationships as well as social and cultural
ones, and a wide range of processes affect such systems and may contribute to
bringing about changes within them. The agrarian system is considered to be more
than a farming system, which denotes a more restricted set of technical factors and
relationships (Harris, 1982).
Agricultural change can be defined along two broad axes: technological and
structural. Technological change can be observed in many ways, in terms of the types
and amounts used, management practices, productivity, and efficiency.
Intensification is often used to describe technological change involving greater use of
labour or other inputs per unit of land. Structural change involves changing social
and economic relations in the production process, for instance in land ownership and
tenure and in the relation between labour and capital (Brush and Turner. 11l, 1987).
As part of a system, agrarian change cannot be defined by agriculture alone.
The majority of rural households combine several sources of income both in
agriculture and non-agricultural activities. Therefore, satisfactory treatment of
interaction between the two activities is important. Saith (1992) has formulated
stages of non-farm economic developments in relation to farmer categories according
to degree of landownership. In the first phase, both agricultural wage employment
and self-employment are important to the poor farmer, but not to the rich farmer. The
farm employment pattern shows an inverse relationship. In the second phase, due to
processes of monetization, technological change, and economic growth, the
importance of wage employment is increasing to poor farmers but self-employment
is still highly important. For the rich farmers self-employment is also getting more
important, hut it is performed by investment of agricultural surplus. The farm
employment pattern changes into a U type. In the third phase, due to exposure to
urban competition, agricultural wage employment for the poor farmer is intensified.
Self-employment for poor farmers is eroded progressively while for rich farmer it is
still important. In this stage, the emerging farm employment pattern is positive. In fix
fourth phase, due to competition from the modern farm sector, self-employment for
the rich farmers begins also to erode, whereas agricultural wage employment shows
tendency towards an inverse relationship. In the final phase, agricultural wage
employment no longer is important and the poor tend to complete leave out, whereas
income from self-employment for the rich is substituted by income in form of
remittances from household members.
Approaches to the study of agrarian change might be distinguished broadly
into system approaches, decision-making models, and structural/ historical
approaches. Systems approaches are emphasizing the systemic relationships of
environmental, technological, and demographic conditions within the farming
system, as well as the social responses to them. Decision-making model studies of
farm economics in the neo-classical mould are concerned with the allocation of
resources on the farm and with the farmers responses to markets and to innovations.
These kinds of social science studies have become quite good at explaining ‘the
success or failure of the individual within the system but in this case the system itself
is left out of the analysis. The structural/ historical approaches are concerned with:
1. Inter-relationships of people and the natural environment,
2. Relationships of people in the process of production in the sense that it places
the ownership and control of resources at the centre of analysis, and
3. Relationships between expanding capitalism and various forms of production
which, on the face of things at least, might be described as ‘non’ or ‘pre-
capitalist’ (Harris, 1982).
Historical experience suggests that seen in a long-term perspective economic
growth has been accompanied by specialization, centralisation, maximisation,
urbanisation and industrialisation. (Lea and Chaudry, 1983). In line with the
development process of the country and the integration of rural areas into wider
markets, agricultural commercialisation is an unavoidable process.
Three major points of view maybe distinguished in the role of agricultural
commercialisation in the process of development;
1. An economic-technocratic view point, emphasizing economic and technical
measures as instrumental in increasing agriculture productivity and production
for the market,
2. The ‘psychological variant of the first, which pays specific attention to the
individual characteristics of farmers, to theft attitudes and motivations.
Behavioural factors are seen as barriers to or channels for the diffusion and
adaptations of innovations. In both views, commercialisation is used more or
less as synonymous for modernisation and development, and
3. The ‘politico-economic’ point of view on the commercialisation of agriculture
takes into account the political context of the nature of power relationships at
various geographical scales. Agriculture is regarded as a factor contributing to
development when accompanied or preceded by structural change at various
geographical scales (Hinderink and Sterkenhurg. 1987).
There are also different views on the impacts of the process of
commercialisation and commoditisation of agriculture (Baths, l982. There are those
in favour of the view that with increasing commoditisation and commercialisation in
agrarian societies, a process is set in motion whereby rural producers are set apart
into distinct classes. Another view states that although development of commodity
production is not unimportant the distinctive peasant economy, that of small
producers persists as they are not yet separated from their means of production and
retain a degree of control over land and family labour, survive.
The view that technology and commercialisation play a major role in
stimulating agricultural growth and alleviating poverty is now widely accepted.
Many regions in the developing world that produce commercial crops for domestic
and for export markets are better off than regions that are under subsistence
production. But there is also a tenacious tradition of pessimism about technology and
commercialisation, whose adherents claim that both of these movements may bring
adverse consequences for the poorest (Binswanger and Braun, 1991).
In a modernization approach to agricultural development, progressive
(usually large owners) tanners play important role. This assumes a top down
development in which progressive farmers are approached (extension services
provision and offered facilities/ inputs to adopt new technologies, crops and
marketing systems). It is assumed that the agricultural innovations will be diffused
from the progressive or big farmers to the traditional or smaller farmers and from the
more favoured area to backward areas. Diffusion and trickling down effects,
therefore, are essential elements in the adoption process of the innovations. In
Indonesia (Hardjono, 1983), the success of the rice intensification programme has
been attained through government patronage of large-owners, many of whom are not
themselves farmers.
Political-economic approach to agricultural development focuses on the mode
of production characteristics of agriculture i.e. the role of dominant social relations
of productions including the political power structure. The progressive incorporation
of the rural economics into the world market system is deeply affecting these
relationships in the rural communities. Agricultural commercialisation may lead both
to processes of ‘peasantisation’ and ‘depeasantisation’. The former process involves
only a partial transformation of subsistence agriculture into a market oriented
agriculture. Characteristic of the peasant mode of production (small operated farms,
use of unpaid Family labour, production type mainly for own household
consumption, self exploitation of labour) are persisting. The main reason for this
being that the small marginal Farmers can not afford the means and the risk of
complete forms of commercial farming, while at the same time their low but cheap
surplus production, is an indispensable contribution to the national food supply
because of their sheer numbers. The peasant economy thus is an integral part of the
national economy supplementing the capitalist sector. On the other hand, a process of
de-peasantisation may prevail among the richer farmers, mainly producing cash
crops for the domestics or export markets. Here the use of capital inputs and new
varieties/ crops is ubiquitous while, at the same time, the process of
commercialisation is inducing a more businesslike attitude towards agricultural
production. New properly relations are coming into existence while traditional land
and labour sharing mechanisms are being eroded. The rising capitalist mode of
production leads to an increasing rural differentiation through alienation of land and
the expulsion of labour from the modernising agriculture sector (Hail, 1989;
Hinderink and Sterkenburg. 1987; Long, 1984; Ruthenberg, 1980.) In spite of the
development of capitalist agriculture, tendencies towards the polarisation of peasant
society may be weakened. This is because of factors such as; the break-up of large
units at inheritance, and the reproduction of small-scale holdings by the intervention
of merchant and moneylenders capital, or in the more recent past of state capital.
3. Factors of Agricultural Change
The changes in agriculture encompass among others; land tenurial and
structural characteristic of agriculture, technology and farming methods, and rate of
growth of total output (Bayliss and Wanmali, 1984). Sharecropping is a form of land
tenancy with the payment for the use of land (the rent) as a percentage of the total
physical output obtained in the crop season, and, therefore, the amount of rent varies
with the level of harvest (Ellis, 1988). This tenancy arrangement tends to be shifted
to a cash mode of payment for tenancy. With increasing levels of commercialization
the tendency of land concentration will be one of the reason for the shift in the mode
of tenancy. According to Stevens and Jabara (1988) with respect to the relation of the
size of land and productivity, it is supposed that in agriculture there are intrinsic
diseconomies of scale/ size. While economies of scale are usually accompanied by
increases in output per twit of input due to enlarging the size of the farm or business,
in agriculture an increasing farm size usually is associated with decreasing land
productivity. This relationship, according to Johnson and Ruttan (1994), used to be
widely accepted, particularly as a justification for land reform. Several important
questions remain unanswered, however, particu1arl concerning land quality
differences between small and large farms, differing factor proportions, labour
productivity, and institutional disincentives to investments by large-scale farmers.
Land tenure combines two types of rules: control and access. Control implies
durable rights to use land, as expressed in the ownership in the European tradition.
Rules of control are held originally by the social group and delegated to families,
households, or individuals. Control means that the holder of the right is permitted to
use the land in manner approved by the group. Even though control may ultimately
be vested with the group, many societies recognize that individuals or households
have de facto control over land. Control may be loaned, sold, rented and passed to
others, although most societies regulate these passages. Rules of access concern how
control is exercised. They are important in translating land control into land use.
Access implies temporary rather than durable (Brush and Turner, 1987).
The changes in technology and farming methods have some consequences in
social, economic and physical conditions of rural areas. In fact technology is neutral,
as stated by (Koppel and Oasa, 1987) it does not favour anyone in any consistent
social, political, or economic sense. Technology only favours rational resource
allocation. Technology is accepted and used because it is economically appropriate.
If new agricultural technology is ever socially unfavourable, an assessment should be
made on the policy environment that is preventing a ‘normal’ adaptive evolution of
rural social and economic institutions to proceed.
The new agricultural technology though theoretically scale neutral, was not in
practice ‘resource neutral’, because most of the advantages accruing to richer
cultivators. Byres (1985 as quoted by Harris, 1992) pointed out that the process of
change might aptly be described as one of partial proletarianisation, given that the
evidence strongly suggests an increasing dependence upon wage labour and the loss
by poor peasants of an increasing share of the operated area to rich peasants, though
without them necessarily losing the ownership of the land. The technical changes are
concerned with the adaptation of the production to the changing circumstances,
pressures, and opportunities, which confront the farm household. They are a
reflection of the adoption of new or different methods of production (Ellis, 1987).
Changes in agriculture are strongly influenced by innovations in technology and
firming methods that lead to an increasing production. According to Binswanger and
Braun (1991) when a new technology, such as Green Revolution variety, is being
introduced into a region, higher farm profits initially accrue to all producers who
adopt it, including poor farmers. Therefore, the complementarities between yield
increasing technological change in staple foods and commercialisation of agriculture
can be exploited to help alleviate poverty.
Adoption of innovation is seen to be variable as well. According to
Eijkemans (1995) the existence of ‘incremental analysis’ explains why peasants
seldom adopt all components of a so-called ‘integrated technology package’ all at
once on a voluntary basis, as they were expected to do when they were offered ‘the
green revolution programme’. Diffusion and adoption of innovations are
determinative in this case. There are several problems with regard to the diffusion of
innovations. The Line duration taken is important because the diffusion is based on
observations from farmer to farmer. More time is needed for innovations to reach
remote areas. To stimulate the adoption, prove of the gain of new methods is needed.
Extension services are not only expensive but according to Stevens and Jabara
(1988) they usually leads to little increase in production. Apart from these problems,
there are constraints of adoption of innovation due to the fact that not all farming
methods are suitable for all regions (Bayliss and Wanmali, 1984).
Technical change in agriculture according to Hayami and Ruttan (as quoted
by Koppel and Oasa, 1987) is essentially endogenous (mid hence should be
incorporated into an economic explanation of agricultural development): changing
factor prices and their indirect effects through a variety of forces (such as population
growth, variation in land quality, physical remoteness) create opportunities for
technologically improving factor productivity. A broad effect of technical change is
that it integrates agricultural production more closely into the market economy, and
hastens the demise of the peasant status. Whether agricultural commercialisation also
means polarisation into distinct rural social classes depends on a number of other
factors than technology alone (Ellis, 1988). Agricultural commercialisation implies
an increasing monetization and market orientation of agricultural production. It
affects productivity and growth of output, and stimulates specialization and
diversification. (Hinderink and Sterkenburg, 1987).
The size, density, structure, and change of populations are major topics in
understanding fanning systems. In subsistence agriculture (consumption-production)
the amount of production sought, and hence the land and labour employed is strongly
related to local demographic conditions. In commercial or market agriculture
(commodity-production) local demographic conditions may not directly affect
production goals, but they may play important roles in crop scheduling, selection of
cultivars, and so forth. Because of this, the relationships between population change
and agricultural change have been crucial topics in studies of fanning systems,
particularly in the underdeveloped world (Brush and Turner II, 1987, Bilsborrow and
Geores, 1994). With regard to agricultural output, there are various methods to
measure changing rates of growth of total output. Measuring the input-output index
indicates the efficiency. The indexes on partial factor of productivity cover labour
productivity (i.e. changes in total output in relation to changes in total labour input),
and land productivity growth (i.e. changes in total output per hectare of agricultural
land which is commonly applied for major food crop). The more general measure is
total food output in relation to total population. The application of the indexes
measuring productivity should consider data availability, fluctuativeness and
seasonality characteristics of farming, and (changing in) cropping pattern.
4. Agricultural Growth Linkages
The role of agriculture in economic development can be referred to as
comprising back-ward and forward contributions to other economic sectors. As
mentioned by the World Bank (1990), the development of agriculture may provide
the opportunity for efficient development of the entire commodity system, from input
production and marketing to downstream processing, thus fostering both vertical and
horizontal diversification with extensive backward and forward linkages between
production, processing, and marketing. Within these linkages, the demand/ income
linkage also plays an important role. The growth iii income generated by agriculture
means a higher purchasing power of rural inhabitants. The increasing purchasing
power will not only stimulate further diversification of agricultural production, but
also the development of oilier economic sectors. Income linkages are also understood
as the capability of agriculture to generate cash from marketing to other regions or
even export elsewhere, and presupposedly strengthens the local-capital investment.
The theory of multiplier effects of agriculture within a rural economy describes the
effects on net-farm incomes and agricultural outputs, and on generating non-farm
income, and thereby reducing rural poverty. However, this theory of functional
growth linkages is still in question due to the limited evidences, among others, on
whether agricultural growth goes along with increasing demand, whether production
or consumption linkages are contributing most to production or consumption, and
whether cross-investment from agriculture to the non-farm sector does really take
place (Dunham, 1991).
5. The Peasant Farmer
In many poor countries a relatively small number of large or modern
agricultural holdings, which provide a large proportion of the market output, exist
alongside a vastly larger number of subsistence or peasant holdings. The primary
activity of the peasant farmer is producing basic foods for his own household
consumption, with surplus land and resources devoted to producing crops and
livestock products for sale (Colman and Nixon. 1978, 138). The dual orientation of
peasant production for consumption and for sale is a major concern and is
emphasized in all agricultural development studies. With regard to farm inputs.
peasants use their own unpaid family labour, although the hiring and selling out of
labour power is also quite possible and compatible with peasant society. Peasant
commodity production is also characterised by the use of simple technology (Harris,
1982; Hinderink and Sterkenburg,1987).
According to Ellis (1988) peasant farming can he described as agricultural
production by farm households with access to their own means of livelihood in land,
utilising mainly family labour in farm production, and that is always part of a larger
economic system, but is fundamentally characterized by partial engagements in
markets, which tend to unction with a high degree of imperfection. Peasants may also
be described as an apart society’ defined by their sub-ordinate relationships to
external markets, the state and dominant culture. The peasantry is sub-ordinated to
other classes within the state and may be required to yield some tribute to them.
The poor are usually well integrated in the rural labour market: whether hired
workers or small farmers, they participate in the exchange economy and, despite the
high share of income allocated to food, their cropping patterns and crop-livestock
mixes show large involvement in markets. This fact is important for the spreading of
effects of commercialisation and technology in the economy (Binswanger and Braun.
1991). In fact, peasant villages, both open and closed, are always connected with
larger, regional forms of social orgnisation. These include economic forms, such as
market systems, and political forms, such as nation states (Brush and Turner II.
1987). According to Ellis (1988) peasant farmers as social group are part of larger
economic systems. Peasant production is therefore exposed in some degree to market
forces and the input-output production elements are subject to valuation by wider
markets.
In the national development process, the existence of a peasant mode of
production is considered differently by different views. In the conservative ‘old-
orthodoxy’ view, until 1960, the peasant is a passive victim of external forces, and
large scale, mechanized agriculture is a prerequisite for agricultural modernisation.
The ‘Neo-classical’ view is also still in favour of large scale farmers and its main
concern is still with economic growth, efficiency and adaptations to markets. The
important issue in this view is that agriculture is the foundation for overall
development. The ‘New orthodoxy’ sees peasants as profit-maximising producers
having willingness and ability to manipulate and exploit forces if given the
possibility to do so. In the ‘new orthodoxy’ view, the small farm could offer an
efficient and equitable basis for agricultural development. In the political’ view,
peasants are seen as always sub-ordinated by state or by large farmers in the
development process (Johnson. 1991; Ellis, 1988; Beny. 1993). It is important to be
noted, however, that peasant posses a certain degree of independent control over the
resources and the equipment that they use in production. Peasant society is not
homogeneous and may be marked by quite considerable inequalities.
6. Farmer’s Decision Making
In confrontation with the larger system, farmers make changes and
adaptations. According to Eijkemans, (1995) there are several factors that structure
the farmer decisions, namely the bio-physical environment and the contextual
constraints. The bio-physical environment encompasses the environmental
conditions important for land use; soil, climatological, morphology, hydrological,
and biological conditions i.e. aspects vital toward the well functioning of land-
holdings; productivity, stability, and suitability. The contextual constraints on
farmers decisions, encompass: decisions within the individual farmers effective
reach, and decisions outside the farmers scope (use of common resources, land
ownership, cost of resources and products). Mostly government has created these
conditions; the construction of good infrastructure, price stabilisation (this includes
input-output), agricultural extension, provision of credit facilities, regreening,
reforestation projects etc.
In most cases, large farmers devote a larger share of their land to cash crops
than small farmers. This may be due to the following causes (Fafchamps 1996); (1)
The presence of credit constraints, limited capital re-investment, technological
differences giving advantage to large scale farming, and differentials in relative
factor costs across firms. In short differences between crops in factor intensity, (2)
different ability of farmers to sustain risks with respect to crop choices and cropping
patterns, and (3) third world farmers often have to be self sufficient in basic staples
so that farmers allocate land to cash crops provided that their food security is
guaranteed.
For most farmers, farm capital availability, inadequate credit, and poor
technology are seen as the principal constraints to improve productivity and are a
serious constraint to price responsiveness (Riedinger, 1994). Limited farmer
knowledge and access to technical information also slow the pace of response to
market incentives. Various constraints -land tenure, farm capital, farmer knowledge,
perceived risk and uncertainty, and (in the poor areas) agro-climate, limit the
capacity of farmers to respond rapidly to changing market signals. For example, due
to the uneven distribution and insufficiency of land to provide a living for their
family, smallholders tend to rent more land or to rent out the land if they find work
elsewhere.
Farmer’s response, as appraised by Cederroth (1995), to the speed of
changing agriculture development methods are diverse. There are rapidly
diminishing (but still large group) of traditional farmers who are skeptical of
innovation and continue their traditional farming methods. There are modern,
capitalistic minded farmers. There are groups of landowners who have handed over
responsibilities to other people/ caretakers. In view of such situation, government
intervention should smooth the process of technological introduction. The
government’s role is to ensure that the policy environment minimizes price distortion
and that the public goods needed by agriculture are made available. According to
Hayami and Ruttan (as quoted by Koppel and Oasa, 1987) the government can:
1. make vigorous efforts to ensure that appropriate technology is generated and is
made widely available
2. redirect windfall profit streams to investment in agricultural infrastructure
through appropriate tax policy, and,
3. in principle, make compensatory payments to those who are technologically
displaced with regard to factor prices, agricultural factors will be allocated
efficiently because they are priced correctly.
In Javanese agriculture, White (1991) distinguished different household
strategies in agricultural development i.e.
1. a dynamic strategy of accumulation by large farmer or landowner households in
which surpluses from one activity are used to gain access to higher incomes in
another one (both agricultural and non-agricultural),
2. a strategy of consolidation by the middle group of small farm households which
first of all is geared towards security its own food supply,
3. a strategy of sheer survival by the sub-marginal farmers and landless
households, which drives them to accept any activity without capital investment
and consequently with very low returns.
Farm household from different socio-economy strata and among different
agricultural ecosystem may show different response to stimulant for agricultural
changes. In the recent developments, the potential changes may take shape in the
combined form of agricultural diversification and commercialisation. The farmer
responses to agricultural development may be differentiated as follows;
1. The non-response, in which farmers proceeds their agricultural activity in
traditional way. There is no distinct difference with the previous generations and
any introduced innovation is neglected.
2. The growth response, in which the farmers adopt agricultural modernisation that
lead to land intensification, increasing productivity, increasing diversification,
etc.
3. The satisfier response, in which agricultural land no longer been functions in an
optimal sense and does no longer function as a major source of income
compared to non-farm income.
4. The withdrawal response, in which agricultural work and land are no longer
attractive. Some sell the land, rent the land out, or leave the land fallow.
7. Rural Livelihoods
In their daily life, rural farm household may confront with external
environment potential to change their livelihoods. There are seasonal shifts, trends,
and even shocks that may have direct impact to farm household to different, scale
and intensity (DFID.1995). Seasonal shifts do not only concern with wet to dry
nature season, but also with prices, inputs availability and production. Trends are
more gradual and predictable, for instance population trend, and resource trend.
Shocks are more sudden and unpredictable. Usually it takes shorter period although
the impact may be much longer and multiplied. It ranges from natural hazard; flood
and storm, humanitarian conflict, and also economic shock like monetary crisis.
A livelihood is more than merely synonymous with income. Its dictionary
definition is a ‘means of a living’, which straightaway makes it direct attention is to
the way in which living is obtained. A livelihood comprises assets (natural, physical,
human, financial and social capital) the activities, and access to these (mediated by
institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained b the
individual or household. (Ellis, 2000). Rural livelihood holds distinct character to
urban livelihood. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not
undermining the natural resource base.
Monetary crisis in 1998 is a great example of external factor affecting rural
livelihood. It has become major attention for those who concern with rural
livelihood. The finding of Burger (2004) indicates that the existence of strong
redistributive mechanisms and the planting of low external input types of rice
varieties, still allowed people to survive once price started to fall due to monetary
crisis. This finding is based on his study of agricultural practices around the buffer-
zone of the Kerinci Seblat National Park, Kerinci Regency, Sumatera. The
redistributive mechanism has been for long time become social-economy support
system in the traditional community. However, the mechanism increasingly restricted
only to heirs, or to friends, and to co-villagers. The access to field is also restricted
only to rice field which is mandated to be rotated by social system (sawah giliran
system). Outsiders and migrants, therefore, became increasingly excluded from these
fall-back mechanism. In line with the study in upland East Java (Noteboom. 2003), it
also stresses, however, that those with effective social network were better able to
cope with crisis than those who had not. The concept of borrowing (pinjam) of land
for cultivation for both the rice fields and upland fields was developed as coping
mechanism for those in needs. Solidarity mechanism of borrowing under conditions
of increasing land shortages has caused, borrowing arrangements to change into
renting, especially once annual crops began producing saleable surplus. Another
redistributional character is also based on kinship, which oilers temporary access to a
rice- field in line with Adat Minangkabau. This has always been an effective way of
managing wet rice land in a sustainable way. Sharecropping in upland areas had also
been part of (adat) regulations as another sharing mechanism. This is in line with
progressing commercialization and decreasing options for obtaining food security
through on-farm wet rice cultivation. Efforts to stabilize livelihoods were
increasingly geared towards upland areas.
The above Burger’s research finding s the answer of the research question on
indigenous resource use strategies under conditions of increasing pressures upon
local resources and livelihood system. Using rapid rural appraisal method and semi
structured interview with 330 respondent randomly selected the research also try to
answer question on what response mechanisms can be identified in resource use
strategies during the economic crisis and characteristic of the household can be
attributed as winners or loser due to economic crisis. It is found that the advancing
process of commercialization arid integration into wider national and international
political, social, and economic systems has already transformed livelihoods from a
mainly subsistence-oriented system of wet rice cultivation into an integrated system
of mixed food crops and cash crops agriculture. In the era of globalization, externally
induced stresses and shocks continue to impinge on livelihoods of particularly the
rural poor. Better of households however, remain rooted in the villages, as they
appear to engage in all kinds of higher quality non-farm and off-farm employment
opportunities. Investment are usually aimed at the acquisition of land and standing
stocks of cinnamon trees for the purpose of accumulating wealth, or at annual crop
cultivation for quick yields. Source of investment is also taken from migration
process. Labour migration and remittances are limited to the head if the household,
usually in connection with savings for buying land.
Titus (2005) also stresses the importance of social network in sustaining
livelihood of farm household in Parigi Village, of Gowa Regency, Sulawesi. The
research was carried out at two levels, i.e. the community level, and the household or
enterprise level. The data collection is performed through participatory rural
appraisal, interview, and in-depth interview. Parigi is an upland village. The village
economy is dominated by agricultural activities which can be categorized into three
major systems, i.e. wet-rice (sawah) cultivation, thy upland cultivation of food crops
(tegalan), and dry upland cultivation of perennial cash crops (kebun campuran).
Tegalan farmers have fewer opportunities for switching to other type types of
farming or accumulate reserves for bad years than the more productive sawah or
kebun. Dominant type of resource use, in this case, determines the scope of facing
problems in cultivation. The second important means to respond to crisis is assets
and capacities to use the resources. The better-off farm households have an initial
advantage over survival households in using their surpluses and potentials to switch
to other crops or activities, to more rewarding types of nonfarm employment, or
simply to shift the burden of the crisis on to their debtors, tenants, and farm workers.
In Parigi, the underprivileged farm households take typical response to crisis by
reducing the use of capita/ inputs in agriculture and retreat into subsistence food crop
farming. In flying to compensate income losses in agriculture they might try to look
for additional incomes from marginal types of non-farm employment. The general
tendency is that the negative impacts of the recent crisis n the village economy of
Parigi have remained limited and have only been severe for the survival households.
Most of the village households were still more or less self-sufficient in food
production and consequently were relatively resilient to crisis impacts on food prices.
Similar to Burger’s finding in Kerinci, Sumatera, the system of mutual help and
sharing in Parigi seems to come under increasing stress due to the advancing process
of commercialization, mid increasing social differentiation and inequality. On the
other hand the crisis has contributed to acceleration of the erosion of traditional
gender role in the division of labour. Female household members will have more
opportunities to participate in (off-farm) economic activities.
Similar to approach to livelihood study in Parigi, the division of land use is
also employed by Eijkemans (1995) on Peasant Decision Making on Land Use in
North Sumatera. The division according to dominant fanning types (irrigated versus
dry-land agriculture systems) is considered to be more appropriate than traditional
division. Irrigated agriculture systems encompass rain-fed, semi technical, and
technical irrigation whereas dry-land system refers to non paddy field i.e. annual
crops farming (tegalan), agro-forestry (kebonan and pekarangan) and pasture
farming (alang-alang, grass fields). Peasant is considered to be able gradually to size
up and adapt to any management problems and risk, and to determine the conflict
with the input demands of existing activities. According to Eijkemans there is no
stagnant farmers. As economic maximizers, peasant would do their utmost to reach
maximum economic returns from their input but constrained by social value,
biophysical environment and incomplete package practitioners or contextual factors
such as irrigation and drainage, fertilization, pesticides, and terracing.
The discussion indicates that rural livelihood study should move into
direction to stimulate the betterment of outcome in the process of change and
adaptation to external factors. The outcome may be identified in term of more
income, increasing well-being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security, and
more sustainable use of the natural
D. Theoretical Framework
The review of theories in preceding sub-chapter provides insight for
theoretical Framework of this research. As indicated by the following flow-chart,
there are four main elements which constitutes the research on agricultural change
and development i.e.
1. The Background Setting
Geographic studies concern with interaction and interdependence of elements
in places and spaces to compose certain ecosystem. It is therefore, this study
proceeds through a stepwise method from meso to micro level analysis and starts
with constructing spatial variation of cropping combination. Agricultural ecosystems
or agro ecosystems is a complex system of interacting biotic and abiotic elements
performing certain functions and processes such as primary production,
consumption, and decomposition resulting in energy flow and nutrient cycling. The
agro ecosystem is further characterized by a hierarchy of integrated system (e.g.
farms within communities, within watersheds, within regions and so forth) composed
of interconnected and interrelated biophysical elements (soil, water, air, climatic
resources. plants and animals), and socioeconomic elements (social, cultural,
economic, institutional and political concerns). The interactions among these
elements determine the properties of the agro ecosystem.
The four different agro-ecosystems have been selected in this research.
1. Commercial horticulture of snake fruit (salak) in volcanic slope located in
Wonokerto Village of Sleman Regency. This is fertile area and gets benefit from
irrigation, water availability, and accessibility,
2. Upland agriculture of calciferous southern hill range of Gunungsewu which is
represented by Giriasih Village in Gunungkidul Regency, The dominant form of
cultivation is mix cropping of subsistence food-crops, and forest and perennial
trees. Giriasih Village in Gunungkidul Regency is a dry up-land area with low
fertility and very limited surface water availability. It is a rain-fed up-land agro-
ecosystems with low infrastructure and low accessibility.
3. Upland agro-ecosysterns of Menoreh hill range in western part of DIY which is
represented by Sidoharjo village. The mix cropping in Sidoharjo Village of
Kulonprogo Regency consists of food crops, commercial horticulture (chili), and
commercial plantation crops (coffee, clove, and vanilla). It has reasonable
surface water with reasonable land fertility as compare to Upland Gunungkidul.
Although hilly area, and in a distance to economic centre of Kulonprogo town.
Sidoharjo has good asphalt road connection.
4. Coastal lowland agriculture in southern part of DIY. The cultivation is focused
on commercial horticulture crops of chili and shallot, and rice. Tirtohargo is
water rich and fertile area, and enjoys good infrastructure and accessibility.
The background setting, in this framework, refers to elements potential to
determine the agricultural practices and orientation. These background-setting
elements comprises; characteristics of the farmer i.e. the head of the household,
characteristics of the household, assets and resources, and government intervention
factors. Among these four elements it is assumed that farmer characteristics are
among the strongest elements in determining agricultural practice and performance.
Farmer may he regarded as decision maker at its own scale. Whether to change or to
stay the same, it depends much on farmer decision. The pattern of decision can be
accessed from socio-demography and socio-economic condition of the farmer.
Farmer’s age, for instance, may influence agricultural performance in the sense that
the younger the age, there is a greater tendency to adopt innovation and more
advance mode of production if compared with old generation. The essential
assumption is that younger age tends to have greater media exposure than the old
generation. Although not as important as personal characteristic of farmer as decision
maker, there are other elements that are supposed to have important contribution in
the process of agricultural development. These elements include the household
condition, assets and resources, and development intervention. The household
condition may provide resource for farm operation either in the form of, for instance,
human resources especially family labour and capital resources,
2. The Process and the Change
The implementation of the choice on agricultural activities appears and may
be observable in two main features. The first relates to non-crop material aspect,
which is, knows as production structure or line of production process. The second
relates to crops non-production value aspect. The aspect of production structure or
line of production comprises agriculture inputs, processing, output, marketing and
distribution. Agriculture inputs may relate with some material influencing the quality
and quantity of the yield. The material input comprises among others seed; chemical
and organic fertilizer; insecticide, pesticide and herbicides; family labour and paid
labour; agricultural tools and implements; financial capital and credit; and marketing
of the product commodity.
The second aspect of agricultural process concerns with crops non-production
value. This aspect refers to types of cultivated crop and mode of cultivation. The type
of crop and cropping combination is assumed to reflect objective of production or
production orientation. Most farmers who grow rice or other staple foods tend to be
self-subsistence. During harvesting period, when they carry the yield from the field
to the home, the larger part may be kept in rice storage for one year consumption.
Most farmers who grow horticulture or plantation crops may indicate commercial
orientation in production.
3. The Outcome
Each process of agricultural change and development may bring to certain
outcome. The assumed outcome may appear in identifiable mode of production and
in orientation of production. Mode of production can be differentiated into two
simple and contrasting figures whether to follow agricultural diversification or
specialisation. The agricultural specialisation concerns with ultimately mono-crop
cultivation. However, in rural area of Java, this case does not commonly happen due
to variation in season, and the time-span of crop maturity from crop cultivation to
harvesting. In one round year there is possibility that farmer cultivate single crop for
single cultivation period, but in one year round cultivation there are cultivation of
three different crops successively. However, there are also several types of
horticulture that have one year time span or even more.
The production orientation may also be differentiated into two polar of
orientation i.e. commercial or subsistence. Commercial orientation refers to trade
context of the commodity encompassing; selling and exchange. In this regard, the
commercial crops or cash crops for commercial orientation mostly concerns with
horticulture and plantation crops. Farm household may also consume the product of
these horticulture cash crop and plantation crops. However the proportion is very
small. Cultivation for subsistence orientation refers to self consumption of the
commodity. Self consumption crops are mostly staple food crops, especially rice.
The degree of self-consumption may depend on the intensity and production
quantity. In upland non-irrigated area, the cultivation of rice may take only once time
and depends on rainfall. In such a situation, the harvest may be kept for one year
duration and almost nothing left for sale. In other more fertile and irrigated area,
once time rice cultivation may generate sufficient quantity and even surplus for sale.
4. The Impact and The Problems
The sequential flow of thought is understood to end up at constructing farm
household living condition in the context of wealth and livelihood. The living
condition is not stationary.
There are some impulses that may provide insight on the sustainability of
condition and the future tendency. Monetary crisis is considered to be powerful
impulse to bring the wealth and livelihood to shift and change. It is recognized to be
powerful due to its sudden, and unanticipated drive. It has wider impact coverage in
sectoral and regional senses. All sector experiences effect of monetary crisis to
varying degree. Although many are suffered and loss not only the profit but the
investment as well, there are some sectors winning higher profit from crisis. In view
of regional respect, urban area is supposed to suffer more from monetary crisis than
rural area. The basic assumption is that the living of urban area is much related with
monetary economic. It is therefore, the ruling process might be synthesized into
proposition that the higher the level or urbanization of an area, then the higher it
suffers from monetary crisis. It means that rural area with higher degree of urban
influence may suffer more than rural area with higher independence from urban.
Monetary crisis is one and most phenomenal pressure to rural and agricultural
area. However there are also gradual and intensifying stimulus that may contribute to
change in agricultural practices mid farm household wealth and livelihood. Farm
households are assumed to be aware of this stimulus and identify it as problems and
potential for development of their farm. The increasing population pressure or the
limitedness of wage labour are among the intensifying problems of agricultural
practices. The introduction of new method and innovation of new variety or new type
of crop are also issue that may change and give different direction of cultivation
method.