Circular Migration in Indonesia. Hugo

8/19/2019 Circular Migration in Indonesia. Hugo

1/26

Circular Migration in IndonesiaAuthor(s): Graeme J. HugoReviewed work(s):Source: Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 59-83Published by: Population CouncilStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972690 .

Accessed: 16/03/2013 02:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Population Council is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Population and

Development Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=popcouncilhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1972690?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1972690?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=popcouncil


2/26

Circular Migrationin Indonesia

Graeme

J.

Hugo

A

substantial

nd growing

ody of field vidence oints

not only to the

widespreadncidence, ut also

to the social

and economic

significance

f

circulation,easonal

migration,

nd commuting ithin

ndo-

nesia. The bulkof thismobility,

owever, oes

unrecordednlarge-scale e-

mographicurveys

nd censuses,whichroutinely

doptthefamiliar riteria

andquestions esigned o detect redominantlyonger istance,more-or-less

permanenthanges

n usualplace

ofresidence. he ow evels

ofthe atterype

of movement evealedbythesecensuses nd

surveys ppear

to confirm

he

conventionaltereotypingf

most ndonesians

and in particularhe

nhabi-

tants

f

Java)

s immobile easantswho are

born, ive,

and die

in

the ame

house,scarcely

ravelingeyond

heconfinesf their atalvillage.

Although

the

nterprovincial,

ore-or-lessermanent

igrationetected

ythe

ensus s

but

ne

subset

ftotal

opulation

mobilityn

ndonesia,nthe bsence f

more

comprehensiveational or evenregional) evel statisticsensus-definedi-

gration nd

populationmobilityave become

ynonymous

n the

iterature.1

Thispaper

eviews hefindingsf a

number f ntensive

tudies arried

out

n

several

arts f ndonesia o establish

whether onpermanentopulation

mobilitys a

phenomenonfsocial, economic,

nd demographicignificance

in

ndonesia.

vidence rom

largenumber fsurveys emonstrates

he

wide-

spread ccurrence

f

temporary

ormsfpopulationmobility

n

ndonesia

nd

themany ormshatmobility

akes.The major xplanationshat

avebeenput

forwardo explain hismobility

re then ummarized.

ccelerating

evels

of

temporaryopulationmobilityaveboth hort-nd ong-termmplicationsor

achieving

more

quitable

istribution

f wealth

within

ndonesia.

A

number

of

these

ssues

reraised

n

the oncludingection

f this

aper.

Several

irec-

tions

n

continuingesearch

ntononpermanentobility

re

dentified

n

which

demographers

ould make a

significantontributiono the

understanding

f

fundamental

hanges aking

lace withinndonesian ociety.

POPULATION

AND

DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW

8,

NO.

1

(MARCH

1982)

59


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

60

Circular Migration in

Indonesia

It snot asyto

distinguish

etween ermanentnd

nonpermanent

opu-

lationmobility.

elinsky 1971:225-226) defines

onventional

igrations

anypermanent

r

semi-permanent

hange

f

residence nd

circulations

a

great

ariety

f

movementssually hort

erm, epetitive

r

cyclical

n

nature,

but llhaving ncommon he ack ofanydeclaredntentionf a permanentr

long

asting hange n

residence. A further

istinctionan be

madebetween

commuting,efined s

regular ravel

utside hevillage usually

or

work r

education)or rom to24

hours, nd

circularmigration,

nvolving

ontinuous

but

temporarybsencesof

greater han one day. Some

fieldworkersave

adopted pper

hresholdsf continuousbsenceof

6

months r

12

months o

distinguishetween

ircular nd

permanent igration. owever,

hese

work-

ershave

also suggestedhatmuch

ssentiallyircular

mobility

as defined s

permanent

y adoptinguch

bsolute riteria.

learly,

hedifferenceies

n

the

intentionsf ndividualsnd thenature nd evelof theirommitmento par-

ticular laces, and such

phenomena efy ttempts

o establish bsolute

em-

poralcriteria.

espitethese

roblems,

hebulkof movementsan

be

readily

distinguisheds permanentr

temporary.

In

Indonesia hecensus and

most onventionalarge-scale

urveys re

designed o

systematicallyxclude

he

bulk fnonpermanent

ovement.

his

makes t

mpossible ofurnish

ccurate ational r

provincialstimates f the

extent f

commutingndcircular

migration.omepolicymakers

nddemogra-

phersmakethe vailabilityfsuchestimates he ine qua nonof the signifi-

cance of a

demographic

henomenon.learly

t is

important

o obtain

hese

estimates,

ut

the

fact hatnone are

availablehere

s

more

reflectionf the

inappropriatenessf current

ata collectionmethods

o Indonesia'sdemo-

graphic,

ocial, andeconomic eality

han f the nsignificancef

thephenom-

enon.

Accordingly

he

imof

the

irst

ection

s to demonstrate

ow

the

bulk f

nonpermanentobilitys

missed nconventional

ata collectionnd to draw

upon

he

catteredase

study vidence o establish

hat, lthough

ational

sti-

mates f

the

volume f

nonpermanentobilityre

not

available,

t

is a

phe-

nomenon fdemonstrableignificance.

Evidence of

widespread

nonpermanent

mobility

In

the

1971 ensus ome7.3

million

ndonesians, r

6.4

percent f

the

popula-

tion,

had

lived

at

some

time

outside heir

rovince f

present

esidence

nd

hence were

classified

s migrants. However,

as has been

demonstrated

elsewhereHugo,1978:

10-12) the

riteria sed

to

definemigrants

n

that

en-

susexcludedmost hort-distancendshort-termovers.2 heextent owhich

the

emporalriteria

dopted

n

the

ensus xcluded opulationmovements

f

significancean be

gauged rom ield

urveyvidence.

A

studyn

14

West

Java

villages hat ttemptedo

detect

ll

permanentndnonpermanent

oves sso-

ciated

withwork

nd formal ducation

ound hat

nlyone-thirdf all such

moves

met he ensus

migrationime riteria

Hugo, 1975,1978). Moreover,




4/26

Graeme J. Hugo

61

in the urvey illagesbetween

6 and 98 percent

f themoverswho met he

census ime riteria ovedwithin

heprovince

f WestJava ndhencedid not

qualify

s

migrants

s

far s

thecensuswas concerned ecause

they id

not

cross heboundaryf

a

census

migrationefiningegion.

The WestJava study oncentratedn populationmovementrom il-

lages to themajormetropolitan

enters f Jakarta

nd Bandung see map).

Several istinct

ypes f nonpermanent

obility ere dentified

s havingma-

jor significance.

hese

ncluded

ommutingverdistances f

up to 50 km, o

participaten full-timerban-based

mploymentr irregularly

o engage n

work upplementaryo village-based

obs. More

distinctives circularmigra-

tion,wherebymovers o not

change heir sual

place of residencen thevil-

lage but reabsent t an urban

estinationor

eriods onger han single ay.

Again uchmovementan be

associatedwith

ermanentull-timemployment

at the destination,ut usually nvolvesnonpermanentork n the nformal

sector f theurban conomy.

ircularmigrantssuallymaintain

omevillage-

based employment,

nd thefrequency

ithwhich heymigrate

s determined

by thedistancenvolved nd

thecosts of traversingt, their

arnings t the

destination,

nd the vailabilityf work n the

home

village.

Much,butby no

means

ll, circular

mobilitys seasonal, ccurring

uring

he xtended eriods

of imitedob opportunityetween

lanting

nd harvestingiceduring he

wet

season and

during he dry eason. Therewas

also significant

ong-distance

circularmigrationromWestJava o theOuterslands owork n plantations

or

oil/mineralevelopment

rojects,

ften

nder

ontract

nd

involving

b-

sences fupto twoyears.Rusli

1978) shows

hat hese ametypes f nonper-

manentmovement

ere

of significance

n

migration

etween ural reas

in

West

Java.

n

the14

study illages hree-quarters

f

thefamilieswere t least

partly ependent

n income

ources utside hevillage,mostly

n Jakartand

Bandung.

Community-based

tudies

n

Jakarta

ave

pointed learly

o

the

mpor-

tance f nonpermanent

igrantsn that ity.

n

particular

ellinek1978a,b),

n

her tudyfpetty radersnJakarta,asdescribedhe ondok ystem hereby

circular

migrants

usually

from

he ame

region

f

origin)

lusterogether

n

tiny ramped

ooming-houses

pondok) wnedby

a

tauke boss),

who also

provides

hemwith hecredit

nd

equipment

eeded o

set themselves

p

as

mobile raders.

he

points

ut

that he

pondok

dwellers were

usually

both

petty

raders

nd circular

migrants

. .

who came

intothe

city

from

he

village

merely

o seek

work

ut

aw their

ermanent

ome s

being

n

the

ountryside

where heirwives,children

nd few

possessions

emained Jellinek,978a:

1).

Of the

more

han200 mobile radersnterviewedy

Jellinek,

ll

butone

was a circularmigrant,nd shesuggestshatf her tudys representativef

mobile

raders

n

Jakartahen heremust e hundreds

f thousands f

circular

migrantsngaged

n

pettyradinglone,

n

addition o thosewho work

s

day

laborers, edicab

drivers,

nd the ike.

With

espect

o

daily ommuting

he

bulkof evidence elates o move-

ment

o

metropolitan

akarta rom ts mmediate

interland.

oentjaraningrat




5/26

wP:\s~~W~t

'4

WAl

s

i.,\~~~~~~~~~~b

k

8

NO

rA~t~

z 'S

O-P

c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

W,4~~~~~~

e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

k

La.

4 J L

*% 4

0

n 4

-

@

_

l l

__

,2

< e A 2~~~~~~~

I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

I

_

2

I

@4

$@_sX~~~~~




6/26

Graeme J. Hugo 63

(1974, 1975)for xample, n his

study

f

villages

outh f

Jakarta,ecognized

widespread onpermanent

ovementso the

apital, ncluding aily

commu-

terswhoare absent nly

during

he

day

or for wo o five

ays

nd

temporary

non-seasonal migrants ho are forced

o

leave their amilies

or

several

weeks r months. s early s 1963Masri howed he ignificancefrailcom-

muting o Jakarta

rom

ogor,

some 60 km to

the south.The population

n

Serpong, 5kmwest f

Jakarta,

ncludes

oth

ommuters ith

ermanentobs

inJakartandmany etty

raders ho ell ocal productsfruit, egetables,

nd

handicrafts)t Jakarta

marketsBorkent-Niehof,974: 163). The fact that

many eople removingnto he rea

surrounding

akarta

n

order

o

commute

to thecity s evidenced n

the preliminaryesults f the 1980 census,which

showed hat he hree

abupatenregencies) djoining

akarta

ad annual

op-

ulation

rowth ates etween 971 nd 1980

of 4.6

percent,

.04

percent,

nd

3.6 percent ompared ith henational ate f 2.33 percentBiro PusatStatis-

tik,1981:3).

Preliminaryesults f

the1980 ensus ndicated hat akarta'sopulation

was 6.5 million, epresentingn annualgrowth ateof 4 percent. his was

soinewhatower han he4.4 percent uring 961-71 nd certainlyower han

most

ommentatorsredicted.

ndoubtedly

his

growth

ate

everely nder-

estimateshegrowth

f

Jakarta's unctional

opulation:

he

census riteria e-

ferredo

earlierwouldhaveensured hatmost ircular

migrants

ndcommuters

who pendmuch ftheirivesandderivemuch f theirncomenJakarta ere

not ctually numeratedn

that ity

ut n their

illage

of

origin.

A

widening

circulationadius round

akarta

as

clearly rought

bout reductionn

short-

distance

ermanent

overs o

the

city,

t the

very

minimum ithin he

prov-

inces f West nd Central

ava, nd a phenomenonimilar o that bserved y

Hawley nd others

n the

Western

orld,

where

he

lengtheningommuting

radius ffordedy the

utomobile as reduced he mount f migration eces-

sary, t least withinocal areas

(Boertlein

nd

Long,

1979:

23).

It

might

e

argued

hat he

ircumstancesbtaining

n

Jakarta-Westava

werehighly pecificothat egion nd conducive ononpermanentobility-

particularly huge metropolis

ith

large and expanding nformal

ector

providingmany ob

opportunitiesith lexible ime ommitments,ith ela-

tively asyentrynd

inked

y

a reasonablyheap, fficientransportystem

o

most

parts

f

theprovince.

However,

number f studies n other

arts

f

Indonesia aveproducedvidence

f

similar

atterns

f

mobility

n

quite

dif-

ferentontexts.

In

the

verydensely ettled entral

Java-Yogyakartaegion,

Mantra's

(1981)

ntensive

tudy

f movementut of two

villages

dentified

ommuting

(much f tbybicycle) s themajor orm fmobility. e explains hat onper-

manent

migration

s of

such

significancemong

he

Javanese hat

hey

have

several

distinct

oncepts

f

such movement:

nglaju

is

used

forthose

who

travel o a

place

butreturnack to their ome

within

he ame

day,nyinep

or

people

who

stay

n

another

lace

for

everal

ays

before

eturning

nd

mondok

for

hosewho

odge

n

a destination

ommunity

or

everalmonths

r

years.




7/26

64

Circular Migration

in Indonesia

Merantau

refers

o

those who

go

to another sland

for

a

relatively

ong period

but ventuallyeturn

ack to theorigin ommunity.he term

indah s used

for esidents ho

migrate o another lace.

Mudjiman 1978)has observed

circular

migrationo the

city

f

Surakartand

the

operation

f a

pondok-cen-

teredmigrationystemimilar othat nJakarta.Withinheprovince f Central

Java here

ppear

o be

twomain

ystems

f

nonpermanentobility

Zarkasi,

inHugo and Mantra,

orthcoming).

n

thewestern art hepatterns

re similar

tothosedescribed arlier

n WestJava,with

ubstantialircularmigrationo

Jakartarom uch reas

as Kedu, Cilacap,Tegal, nd Purwakarta.n

the ast,

however, he bulk

of

the movements

commutingnd,

to a lesser

extent,

circularmigration o the

major cities such

as

Semarang,

urakarta,

nd

Yogyakarta. astles 1967: 53), for xample,

notes hat he bulk

of thework

force

mployed

n

kretekhand-made

igarettes)

actories

n

Kudus and other

cities nCentral ndEastJava s madeup ofwomenwho ive nthe urround-

ing

rural

reas

nd

commuteongdistancesoften

n

foot).

n

East

Java,per-

haps

the

mostmobile

group

re the

Madurese,many f

whomhave

moved,

either

ermanently

r

temporarily,

rom

heir

mall

slandnortheastf Java o

mainland

astJava,

ther arts

f

Java,

Kalimantan,

nd Sulawesi.

The most mobile

of all major ethnicgroups n Indonesia

are the

Minangkabau eople,

whose

homelands the

province

f West

umatra.

Al-

though he highly

estrictive igrant

efinitionriteriameantthat many

Minangkabau overswouldnothavebeendesignatedmigrants,he1971 en-

sus showed

hat

1

percent

fall

persons

orn n West

umatra

ived utside he

province

nd a further2

percent

f

those esiding

n

theprovince ad

previ-

ously

ived n

another

rovince.

he

centrifugalendencies ithin

his

ociety

are

mbodied

n

their

oncept

f

merantau,

hich as beendefineds leaving

one's

cultural

erritory

oluntarily

hether or

short

r

long

time,

with he

aim of

earning living r

seeking urthernowledge r

experience, ormally

with he

ntentionfreturningome

Naim,

1976:

150). Maude

(1980)

in

a

recent

aper has

suggested,

n the

basis of his fieldworkn

several West

Sumatra illages, hat he ncidence fMinangkabaumigrantsettling erma-

nently utside f their

omland

as

increased.

In

southern

umatra ircularmigrations associatedwith he

coffee,

pepper,

nd

spiceharvests,

ith

argenumbers

f

seasonal

migrants

oving

n

from

elatively earbyettlementsr fromheBanten

rea

of West

Java.

The

Bantenese re one of

many roups

n

ndonesiawhoengage n

seasonal ircu-

lar

migration.

s Radial

1965: 34)

has

explained,

The culture

f

the

Banten

people

s

such hat

hey sually

ike o

go

merantau,specially

o the

Lampung

area,

o

seekother ources

f

ncome r

extra

ncome

uring

he

period

efore

theharvest easonbegins n Lampung.They go merantaufter lantingn

Banten

s

complete

nd

return ith

he

nset

f

theharvest eason. This

type

of

seasonalcircularmigrations

widespread

n Java.

Franke

1972: 181),

for

example,

described

ow

literally

housands

f

landless

families

riss-cross

theJavanese

ountryside,ollowing

he harvest romwestto

east,

and then

returning

or

he

next

eason s the

paddy tarts

o

yellow

n thefields

gain.




8/26

Graeme J. Hugo 65

In thefarnorth f Sumatra,

bdullah in Hugo and Mantra, orthcom-

ing) hows substantialolume f

temporary igrationmong

he

Acehnese,

whose dat (customaryaw) dictateshatmovers hould

not ravel oo far rom

their amilies. iegel (1969)

also shows that

many

Acehnese

men eave the

village o engage ntrade f onekind ranother,r npepper rowingo the

east.Thesemen eavetheirwives

ndfamilies ehind ndreturnt east nce

a

year,usually round heend

of

the Muslim

fasting

month.

ncreasingly

his

circularmigrationppears

to focus

on

the

major city

of Medan in

North

Sumatra rovince.

On the

sland f

Kalimantan

here as

been

ittle esearchnto

opulation

mobility, et

t s

apparent

hat

gain

nonpermanent

ovementsre

significant.

Studies

mong

he

dayakpeople

n

the

solated

UpperKapuas

area of

West

Kalimantan3nd heKenyan eopleofEastKalimantan

Colfer, 981)

evealed

noteworthyutmovement,ncluding hepractice f seeking emporaryork

outside

he

egion

n the

ilfields

f

Brunei,hepepper lantationsfSarawak,

or n

the oastal ities

f

East

and

West

Kalimantan,arawak,

nd

Brunei.

he

Banjarese eople of South

Kalimantan ave a long historyf movementut-

side

their ome rea. Rambe 1977:

22)

has

discussed

he

Banjarese oncept f

madam,

which

raditionally

as

meant

o eave one's

natal

village

ndcross he

sea

with

he

imof ncreasingne's wealthwithin time

eriod

hat s not ixed

(but

s

usually onger han neyear).

Johansyahin Hugo

and

Mantra,

orth-

coming) as ndicatedhatmadam susedmore roadlyncontemporaryouth

Kalimantan, ncompassing oth permanent nd nonpermanent obility.

Rambe's

1977) study f themobility f thepeople of Alabio, ocated ome

200 km

nland n theBarito

River, hows hat

many

esidents

ngage

n

circu-

lar seasonal migrationssociatedwith rading, speciallydownrivero the

provincial apital f Banjarmasin.

The islandof Sulawesi s thehomeland f several f ndonesia'smost

peripatetic

thnic

roups.

Abustam

in Hugo

and

Mantra, orthcoming)

as

discussed he

primaryoncepts

f

populationmobility

eld

by

the

hree argest

ethnic roupsntheprovince f South ulawesi-theBugis,Makassarese,nd

Torajan eoples. The Bugis are thedominant

roup

nd

have

a

very

distinct

pattern

f

mobility.

or

several enturies

hey

ave been

seafarers,roaming

the

rchipelago

n

search f trade n accordancewith hedirectionf the

pre-

vailingmonsoon, eturning

o Sulawesi

only

for fewmonths f each

year

o

refitnd

repair heir raus (sailing

boats) Lineton,

975:

174).

In

the

ight-

eenth

enturyhey egan stablishing

olonies

n

Kalimantan, outheast

ul-

awesi, Maluku,

East

Nustenggara,

nd more

ecently

n

Irian

New Guinea),

Jambi

eastern umatra),

nd

even

n

Java

especiallyJakarta).

While hishas

involvedmore-or-lessermanent igrationfBugis settlers,he olonieshave

also served

s bases

from

hich o

engage

n

circular

migrationLineton, 975;

Amiroelah t al., 1976; Suhartoko,

975). There s also substantial ugis

movement

ithin outh

Sulawesi, ncluding

easonal

circular

migration

e-

tween ural reas and

large-scale

ircular

migration

etween

illages

nd the

provincialapital ity

f

UjungPandang.Much

of this

ural-urban

ovement




9/26

66


Indonesia

also has a seasonal

hythmnd nvolves heMakassarese

ndTorajans

s well.

The seasonal

migrationsf Makassarese

rom heir illages n the poorest

southern art

f the province o engage n such nformal

ector ctivities

s

pedicabdrivingnd small-scale

ellinghave been studied

n detailbyForbes

(1978). Peasants egularlyeave their illages s early s midnightnbicycles

piled o gravity-defyingeights

ith griculturalroduce r handicrafts,

hich

they ell ncitymarkets uring

he

day

before

eturning

ome

n

the

ate

fter-

noonor evening.The Torajanpeople

from he denselypopulated

northern

mountainsre also extremely

obile.While

hey

ncreasinglyravel

o Kali-

mantan, akarta,nd rian, he

bulk ftheirmovements within heprovince.

Theirmigrationo Ujung Pandang

s particularly

ubstantial;much

of it is

circular

nd

involvesmovers ngaging

n

informalector ctivities.

everal

studies

estify

o the significant

olume

of

this

movementnd itsimportant

economic ndsocial mpacts ponthevillages forigin Abustam, 975;Sur-

atha,1977;

Mangunrai, 979;

and

Abustam,

n

Hugo

and

Mantra,

orthcom-

ing).

In

eastern

ndonesia, ucardie1979, 1981)has

described wide

variety

of

nonpermanent

igrations

n

the area

of

Halmahera

nd adjacent

slands

(especiallyMakian)

n

the province

f Maluku.These range

frommobility

associatedwith ago gathering

nd other ood ultivation

o short-termigra-

tion

ssociated

withwage abor.

n

IrianJaya,Rumbiak1978) found

hat he

migrationftheGenyem eopletotheprovincialapital ity fJayapura as

essentiallyircular.

Muchof rianhas longhad significant

atterns

f circula-

tion ssociatedwith

hifting

ultivation,rade,

ndexchange fsuchgoods

as

knives ndbuilding

materials.

owever, ommutingo urban reas, specially

Jayapura,

nd

circularmigration

oth o

towns nd to areas of

raw material

exploitation

reof

growingmportance,specially

with he

pread

f

the

prov-

ince's road

network

nd proliferation

f public

minibuses.

Little s known

boutpopulation

mobility

n

East

and

WestNusateng-

gara, lthoughhere re ndications

f

very omplex

ndsignificantatterns.

t

wouldbe interestingo know,for xample,whetherheperiods f faminend

food

hortagehat requently

ccur

n

parts

f

thoseprovincesnducenonper-

manent

migrations.

The aim of this ection as been

to

review

he

iterature

oncerning

he

incidence f nonpermanent igration

ithin ndonesia.

Attention as been

focused nly

n

population

movements

o

seekor engage

n

work,

nd a wide

range

f

somewhat

asual,adventitiousircular

moves o visit elatives,

eek

entertainment,o shopping,

nd the ike have been

ignored.

This

has been

donedeliberatelyo establish hedirect ignificancefnonpermanentobility

for

conomic

development.

he

patterns

f

mobility

ummarized

erehave

resulted

n

considerable

hysical

eparation

etween

lace

of residence

nd

place of work ormany ndonesians.

tudies n Western

ontexts ave shown

how the

availability

f

comparatively

heap

and efficient

ransport

ystems

have

permitted

ommuting

o

replacemigration

ver

relatively

hort

istances




10/26

Graeme

J.

Hugo

67

(Holmes,1965; Lewan, 1969).

The phenomenonf commutingas been con-

sidered o be of such economic

nd social significancehatourney-to-work

questions

re now an

accepted art

f censuses n mostEuro-Americanoun-

tries Termote, 975). However, ubstantialeparation

f

place

of usual resi-

denceand place of workhas been conventionallyegarded s peculiar o

developed ocietieswith heirmodern

means f

transportation,

hile

n

tradi-

tional ociety wellings

nd

placesof

work

were n

almost

dentical

ocations

(Hagerstrand,962: 61).

Nevertheless, e have seen not only that ommuting as

become of

immense ignificance

n

thedeveloping

world utthat proliferationf non-

permanent obilitytrategies

as

made

possible greater hysical

eparation

of

dwelling

nd

workplace

han

s possible

with onventional

ommuting.

e-

spite he apid rogressmade

n transportechnology,ime ndtravelosts till

severelyimit hedistance verwhichmasscommutingantakeplace. How-

ever,

n

Indonesia,

s in

much

ofthe non-Westernorld, here s growing

evidence

f

people iving eyond

and

often

great

istance

eyond)

he on-

ventionalommutingimit, et

gaining hebenefitsnjoyed ycommutersy

engaging

n

circularmigration

etween

heirhome

area

and their

lace

of

work.

The studies eviewed bove

have shown hatmany ndonesians

ork n

oneplace but onsume, pend,

nd nvest heir

arnings

n

another lace. Quite

apart rom he mportantmplicationsfsuchpatternsf mobilityor ocial

change,

his

ignificanthenomenon

ust e taken

nto

ccount

n

planning

he

investment

f

scarcedevelopmentesources. et

what an demographersell

economic nd

ocialplanners

boutmobility

n ndonesia hatwillhelp hem

n

their

ask?The

conventional

ensus

nd

arge-scale urveys

ndertaken

n

n-

donesia

llow

us to

make omehelpfultatementsoncerningong-distance,

more-or-less

ermanent igration.owever,

hese

ources llow

us very

ittle

scope

to

provide etailed, ationally

epresentativeataconcerninghe cale,

incidence, auses,

and

mpact

f

thenonpermanentobility nder

iscussion

here. erious onsideration ust e given o ncludingertainypes fnonper-

manent

mobilitymong

hevariables boutwhich irectnformation

s

sought

in

national

urveys

nd

censuses n

Indonesia.

Explaining nonpermanent

migration

The studies

eviewedn the

previous

ection ndicate he

widespread

ncidence

of

nonpermanentopulation

mobility

n Indonesia.

Moreover,

hese studies

provide mple field-basedvidence

o

reject he argument

hat he measure-

ment nd close study f thismobilityhouldnot be a priorityn migration

research ecause ocial change

nd economic evelopment

ntail

nly erma-

nent

edistributionf

population, specially

rom ural o

urban

reas. The

Indonesian vidence uggests

hat onpermanentobility,specially

etween

village

nd

city,

has

significant

ocial

and economic

mplications

ot

only

for

the

migrants

nvolved ut

lso for

heir

laces

of

origin

nd destination.

iven




11/26

68

Circular Migration

in Indonesia

the mportance

f

nonpermanent

igration, hat

retheforces ausing uch

movement?n

this ection everal

f he heoriesdvanced oexplain

he ccel-

erationn the

ncidence f

commuting

nd

circularmigration

n ndonesia re

discussed.

Sociocultural explanations

Some writers

ave suggestedhat emporary

igration as become

nstitu-

tionalized ithinome thnic roups

n ndonesia,

o

that

tbecomes henorm

for

articular

eoplewithin hat

roup o spendpart f theirives

outside heir

village fbirth.

hisexplanationas been nvoked

specially n the ase ofthe

highly eripatetic

inangkabau

eopleof WestSumatra.

Naim

1974),

who

has

studied

Minangkabau ommunities

hroughoutndonesia,

uggests

hat

theirmatrilineal

ystem as made

malesmarginal ithinhe ociety,

nd ed to

merantaubecominghenorm oryoungmen-with socialdisapprobationn-

curred

f

they

o not onformo

this

atternHadi,

1981).Similarly, bdullah

(1971:6) explains

Minangkabau

erantau

as an

effect f thematrilinealin-

ship ystem:

The custom

f

going

o

the

antaucan be regarded

s

an institu-

tional

utlet

or he

frustrations

f

unmarriedoung

men

who ack

ndividual

responsibilitynd rightsn their

wn society.

o a

marriedman,

going o the

rantau

means

temporaryelease

from wofamilies'

onflicting

xpectations

pressed pon

him s

a

husband

nd a member fthematernalamily.

Maude

(1979) andNaim 1974: 347) bothfound hat hemajorityf migrantshey

interviewed

ave economic

reasons for

moving,but they together

with

Murad, 980:

40) stress he ignificance

f thefact hat

merantauhas become

institutionalized

mong ome Minangkabau eople.

In thematrilocalystem

f theAcehnese

f northernumatra,women

receivehouses

nd sometimesice andat marriage,

hereasmen

re usually

without

esources

n

thevillage

untilheir arents

ie

Siegel,

1969:145).

This

peripheral osition

s a

strong

ncouragement

or

young

men to

go to

the

East (dja' utimo)

or on

the rantau

(leave

one's

home

area),

and

many engage

incircularmigrationoseekworknthepepper-growingreasofthemajor ity

of

Medanor set

off o trade n the

East. While

ociocultural

actors

learly

re

influential

ere, iegel 1969:

54)

warns hat

he

antau

pattern

hould

notbe

overly omanticized

nd that

f a

man

could

make

a

satisfactoryndependent

income ewould tay thome.

Hence, he

Acehnese ircularmigrations

o not

appear

o havethe rite f

passage

characteristics

hat

re

sometimesscribed

to

Minangkabaumigration

nd

very efinitely

o some of theDayak circular

movement

n Kalimantan4

Colfer,

981:

13).

Rumbiak

1978),

in

his

study

f

migration

rom

enyem

o

the

ity

f

Jayapura,

xplains hat eeking ufficient

wealth o meet ride-priceayments as a major auseofyoungmen eaving

the

illage

emporarily.

n

some

ases

outmigration

ecomes virtual

ecessity

for

ertain

illagers, specially

young

men.

The nstitutionalization

f a

particular

orm f

mobility,

hether

onper-

manent r

permanent,perates

ot

only

on

the scale of the ethnic

roup

ut

also

on a

regional

nd

ocal scale

(Lucardie,

981;Vredenbregt,

964; Hugo,




12/26

Graeme J. Hugo

69

1980).

Particularthnic roups n

Indonesiahavelong been

characterizedy

what s

referred

o in

the 1930

census

Volkstelling,

933-1936)

as

wan-

derlust. t is

common

o

find eighboring

illages,

imilar

n

their conomic

and

social

conditions,

ne

evidencing

ubstantialirculationnd theother

ir-

tually omobilityoandfrom hevillage.

The

institutionalizationf

mobility ithin particular

roup ften s-

sumes

n

element fcircularity,

n

that

utmigrationndreturn

migration

re

equally ncouraged. ut tradition

nd

institutionalization

an

also

encourage

stabilitynd

ack of

mobility.

n

this atter

espect

t

s

interesting

o note he

argumentf Mantra

1981)

that

hevery trong ttachmentf the

Javanese

o

their atal

villagemakespermanent

isplacementnathema o

them, ven

n

the aceofbleak conomic

ircumstances.

n

the ther

and,

hey

ave

readily

adopted

ommuting

ndother

onpermanentorms f

mobility

hen

henewly

developedroadtransportationystems ave made thempossible. Lucardie

(1981) aysgreat tress

pon he

motionalttachmentfthe

Makianese otheir

home

village, feelinghat

ncourages ircularity

ather hanpermanencen

their

mobility.

As

withmost opulation

mobility,

onpermanentigrationn ndonesia

takes

lace

n

response

o

a

complex

etof

nteractingorces,

he

eparation

f

which

must

nevitably

e

somewhat

rtificial. ne cannot

ay

that

henonper-

manent

mobility

f

particular

roups

n

ndonesia s

a

response

o

exclusively

socioculturalnfluencesf one typeor another, incemany ther orces re

clearly

t work.

However,

ome

of

the

ociocultural

actors

riefly

entioned

here re

often verlooked. ome

mayargue hat ocietal

mobility orms

re

merely

reflection

f,

and

determined

y,

economic

necessitynd

political

impositions

f

one

kind r

another. et

such arguments

ailto

explain

nter-

regional nd

ntergroup

ariations

n

types

nd

levels

of

mobility

here co-

nomic

nd political onditions

ppearto

be

relatively

omogenous Hugo,

1980).

Sociocultural

lements ppear romhis

writer's illage-levelieldwork

experience

n

ndonesia

o be

too

frequently

verlooked s an often

mportant

elementnfluencingopulationmobilityatterns.qually,however,hat xpe-

rience

aspointedo the

verwhelmingominancefeconomic

onsiderations

not

nly

n

shapinghe

volume

nd

direction

f

mobilityut lso

in

determin-

ing

whetherhat

movements

permanentr

temporary.

In

his pioneering orkon

circularmigrationo

towns,Elkan (1959,

1967)has

suggested

hat he

pattern

f

migrationetween

illage

and city

n

EastAfrica s

best

xplained

n

terms f

economic orces, ather

han y social

and

cultural

actors.We

now

discuss everal

f

the

conomic-based

rguments

put

forward

o

explain

nonpermanentopulation

mobility

n

Indonesia.

Economic

explanations

Maximizingamily

ncome

nd

utility

rom onsumption

he basic

argument

here

was

put

forward

y

Elkan

1959,1967)

n

his

East African

tudy

nd

by

Hugo

1975, 1978)

forWestJava.One

must,

owever,

tress

basic

difference

between

he

findings

f the African

tudies nd those

n

much

of

ndonesia,




13/26

70


Indonesia

especially ava.

t

s clear hat n rural

ndonesia, and hortage

nd

pressure

n

agriculturalesources

remuch reaterhan n most fAfrica.

n

Java

ess than

half

he ural opulationwnsorhasdirect ccessto

sufficient

gricultural

and

to

obtain ubsistence: ost f the

nonpermanentigrant ouseholdsouldnot

earn ufficientncomes n eitherhecity r thevillage o supporthemselves

andtheir

ependents.

hus,

ircular

migration

r

commutingrovides

means

for

amilies

o maximize heir

ncomes

yencouraging

ome members f the

household o work n

the villageat times

f

peak

labordemand nd to seek

work n the cityor

elsewhere

t

slower imes

while other

members f

the

household emain o

cope

with imited

illage-based

abordemands.

n

addi-

tion,by leavingdependentsn

the village

home,

the

migrantsmostlymen)

effectivelyeduce

hecosts

of

subsistence

n the

city

r other estinatione-

cause

the

olitary

mover

anputup

with

heaper

nd ess comfortableondi-

tions hanhis familywouldrequire nd thus cutpersonal osts to a bare

minimum.

hus,byeaming

n the

ity

ut

pending

n the

village

he

migrant

maximizes he

utility ained

from

onsumption.

The argumentor

maximizingamilyncome nd utility

rom onsump-

tion

ppears

o

gain

considerableupport romeveral f the

fieldwork-based

studies eviewed arlier. t

is particularly

ppropriaten Java,where and s

very

carce,the

demands or abor n thevillage are highly

easonal,and a

complex

nformal

ector

n

the

cities

llows

relativelyasy

access

to

employ-

mentalbeitforvery ow income nd often orgreatnvestmentf time nd

effort),long

with he

flexible ime ommitments

emanded y

nonpermanent

migrants.5

lements

f

this

rgument ave

been

putto the

presentwriter y

migrantsuring

ieldwork

n

several

parts

f

Indonesia nd thePhilippines.

One

s

constantly

eminded

fthe

hard-headed

conomic

ationality

f

circular

mobilitytrategies

n

situations here

ncome-earningpportunitiesre ex-

tremely

imitedn

both ural nd urban

ectors. here an be

no

doubt hat n

many egionsraditionallytrong amilynd

village

ies nd the

preference

or

a

rural-based

ay

of ife

xert

strong

ttractionn the

migrant,

ut t

s

rare

that he hoiceofnonpermanentverpermanent igrations aneconomically

irrational

esponse o the

ocial pull

of

thehomeplace.

Risk version r

minimization

second

spect

f

Elkan'seconomic

x-

planation

f

circular

migration

s

thatmovers onsidered

rban

mployment

o

offer

ittle

ecurity

n

old

age

or

n

times f

difficultyo that t

was imperative

to retain

ontacts

ith ural

ociety.

he WestJava

tudy

lso found his

o

be

an

important

onsideration

mong

movers.

A

circulation

trategy eeps

the

mover's

ptions

n

the

village ompletelypen

o that he isk f

not

being

ble

to eamsubsistences reduced y spreadingt between illage ndcityncome

opportunities.

oreover,

everal

village-based

upport ystems

an be

mobi-

lized n times

f economic

r

emotional

eed-namely,

he

nuclear nd wider

family,

he raditionf

gotong oyongmutual

elf-help)mong

he

wider

il-

lage

community,

nd the

traditionallyignificant

apaklanakbuah (patron/

client)

elations.

n

most

ases,

such

upport

s not vailable n

the

ity,

o that




14/26

Graeme J. Hugo 71

if a migrant aintains stake n his villagehe does notcut himself ff rom

what s often heonly vailable upport

n

times f direneed.

Again the risk aversion rguments ave considerable pplicabilityn

Java.Many fJava's

ural

wellers re

on the

very

nife

dge

of existence

nd

simply onothave ufficienturplusoallowthem o take he isks hat erma-

nent

migrationften

nvolves.A

mobilitytrategy

hatminimizes

uch

risks

obviously as more ppeal under uch circumstances.

Mobility esultingrom heuneven mpact f capitalism

The

argument

here s founded

n

political conomy ut s

not a

polar opposite o

the two

largely conomic xplanationsdvanced bove, although

t

s sometimes re-

senteds such.Basically, his rgumenteespopulationmobilitys

a

response

to broader ociostructuralhanges ssociatedwith heunevenpenetrationf

capitalism,which has created ubstantialectoral, lass, and spatial ne-

qualities.

n

a seminalworkAmin

1974)

has

argued

hat abor

migration

n

Africa an be bestunderstoodnterms fthe ffectsfuneven apitalistxpan-

sion

upon

those ocieties.

t

has

been

argued

hat

ontemporaryopulation

mobility

n

Indonesia annot

e

explainedwithout

eferenceo the

formative

influence

f

colonialism

n

thecountry's olitical, conomic,

nd social

sys-

temsHugo 1975,Ch. 2; 1980; forthcoming).hearguments

that he

funda-

mentallyxploitativeolonial ystem esigned o control he ocal population

andexpedite he extractionf raw materialsn the mostcost-efficientay

shaped he pattern

f

mobility

n

verydistinctive ays

that

have yet

to be

altered. he

concentrationf

nvestmentn

areas

of

exploitativectivityplan-

tations,mines,ports,garrisons)

nd its diversion

rom

he subsistence nd

semisubsistencegricultural

reas where hebulkof the

populationived;

the

removal f surplus o

the mother

ountry,tifling

he

developmentf local

industrializationnd a fully eveloped rbanhierarchy;nd the reation fa

dependentconomy, entralized olitical ystem, nd distinctivelass strat-

ification-allhave had a formativend enduringnfluence n mobility at-

terns.

Forbes

1980)

has shown hatAmin's

heory

an be

useful

n

explaining

circulation

y examining

he

movement

f a small

group

f

petty ommodity

producersn UjungPandang, outh ulawesi.He argues hat heres an mpor-

tant

heoreticalistinction

etweenmigrationnd circulation

nd concludes

(Forbes,

1980:

21)

that irculation s

.

.

.

a

result

f

the

ncompletepenetra-

tion f

capital,

nd also

.

.

.

[helps]

o

slow the ate f change n ndonesia y

helping

o

preserve etty ommodityndpeasant ubsistence roduction.

f

the

wage abour ector hould xpand, r f griculturehould ecome ncreasingly

capitalized, hen irculation aywell give way to anotherorm fmobility.

The

latter oint oncerningncreased apitalization f agriculture as some

immediacy

n

contemporaryndonesia ecause t

is

clear thatmany

f ndo-

nesia's, nd especially ava's, ural reashave n the astdecade or so

experi-

enced

the

mpact

f

major modernizing

nd

commercializinghanges

n

agriculturalechnology

nd

practice White,1979). The

full

mpact f these




15/26

72

Circular

Migration

in

Indonesia

changes n population

mobility

s not

yet pparent.

owever,

t s

clear

that

many f these

changes

have had

labor-displacing

ffectswithin

griculture

(Hugo,

1978) andcould

potentially

ave the ffect

f

ncreasing

utmigration

from

hose reas.Whether

uchmovement

s

to be

permanent,

onpermanent,

orbothsnot learbut heres little vidence fanimpendingreat xpansion

in

urbanwage abor

hatwould bsorb arge

numbers

f

permanent

utmigrants

displaced rom

gricultural

reas.

Forbes's

rgument,

hen, s that onpermanent

igrationsboth here-

sult nd the

ause

of nequalitiesn

ndonesian ociety.

t

plays

conservative

role n

preventing

hefull

roletarianizationf the

population. hissameargu-

mentwas

advanced ver60

years

arlier y

Ranneft

1916),

who

recognized

three hases nthe

development

f ndonesia's

conomy,

he ast

being pe-

riodof

capitalistic

roduction ating

rom round 860.

Ranneft oints ut

thedominance fnonpermanentorms fmobility uring hisphase in re-

sponse othe

distinctivelyifferentfrom

urope)

nature fcapitalist enetra-

tion xternally

mposed pon

thepopulation f Java.

He

explicitlytates hat

this

ircularmigration

elays

heformationf

a

proletariat;

nd

nstead f the

emergence

f

two social

groups-an urban-based

on-landowningroletariat

and

a small

farming

lass-there s an

undifferentiatedroup

nvolving

hem-

selves n

both hecapitalist

nd peasant

modes

of

production.

The

theoreticalxplanation riefly

utlined

n

this ection s sometimes

seen as beingcompetitive ith heeconomic xplanations iscussed arlier,

butthe

presentwriterees

themmore s

complementary.he first wo eco-

nomic

xplanations

re based argely n a

micro-levelpproach

nd ariseout

of

intensive ieldworknd

close

study

f

individuals,

ouseholds,

nd small

communities.he

uneven

evelopment

heoryuggests

hat

migration

annot

be

explained

without

nderstandinghe

macro-structuralorces n

society nd

the

ontextuallements

hapinghepattern

f

mobility.

ach of the

explana-

tions

hrows ome

ight

n

the ausesof

mobility.

ence an

importantriority

wouldbe to

explore nd establish

inkages etween heforces

hat perate t

the ndividualeveland nfluence hetherouseholdsr ndividuals illmove

or

stay

nd

thebroader

tructuralorces hat onstrainhe

options

vailable o

them nd

ultimatelyeterminehe verall

attern

f

movement.ieldworknd

the

tudies eviewed eredo

indicate hat here

re,

as

Gerold-Scheepers

nd

Van

Binsbergen1978: 28)

suggest,

nternal

actorsn addition

o the xternal

forces f

capitalistenetration

hat t least

partially

xplainwhy

ome

groups

or

someoftheir

members

igratemore han thers.

t s

at themicro evel

hat

the

wo

approaches

an come

together.

We know ittle

bout

hemicro-struc-

tural

etting

n

which opulation

movementccurs

or fails

o

occur.

How do

the xternal orces f colonialpenetrationndthe esultantnevennddistinc-

tive

patternf

capitalist

enetration anifest

hemselves t

the evel of the

village,

family,

r

individualnd

mpel

migration

f a

particular

ype

r en-

courage tability?

n

what

ways

re

these orces

erceived?

ow do

they

on-

strain

he

range

f

mobility/stabilityhoices

open

to

particularroups

within

the

village?

These

mportantuestions

ave

yet

o

be

approached

n

mobility

research

n

Indonesia.




16/26

Graeme J. Hugo

73

Transport

evelopment

nd temporaryopulation

mobility

ne of

the

most

undamentalistinctionsetween

onpermanent

nd

permanent

orms

f

population obilitys the elative

ignificance

f

the

ourney

etween

lace

of

origin

nd

destination.

n most

permanentnd

semipermanent

igrations,

travelosts, ime aken, nddistanceraversedetween rigin nddestination

generallyonstitute

minor lementn a

mover's verall alculus n

deciding

whether

r not o

migratendwhere. everal

writers

ave pointed otherela-

tive

unimportancef

travel osts

n

migration

e.g., Herrick, 965) andto the

fact

hat hecostsof the

ourney sually

onstitute

one-time

utlay

nd

are

not

continuingnd

significantlementn

themover's verall

udget. his,of

course,

s not he

ase with emporaryorms

f population

mobility hen

he

mover

s repeatedly

irculating

etween rigin

nd

destination.

he journey

itself

learly

ccupies muchmore entral

osition

mong

he

lementsnflu-

encingmovers ndnonmovers,ndtransportosts are a constantndsignifi-

cant

tem nthe

mover's udget.Clearly

prerequisite

or ong andmedium

distancemass

commutingnd

circularmigration f the

types hat

ccur n

Indonesia s a widespread,

heap, andefficient

ransportation

etwork.

The astdecadehas

produced veritable evolution

n

the

vailability

f

public

ransport

vermost f rural

ndonesia

Hugo, 1981b).

There

an be

no

doubt hat he

extension

f roads and the

proliferation

f

vehicles

of

many

types,

specially uses and

minibuses,

nto

hitherto

solated ural reas have

led to greatlyncreased patialmobility or wide spectrumfIndonesia's

rural

dwellers.The

precisenature f the

relationship

etween hisstriking

change

n

transportvailabilitynd

migrationas

been ittle

nvestigated;

ow-

ever,

t

s

clear hat

he

ransport

evolution

as

greatlyacilitated

heconcur-

rent pswing n

circularmigrationnd

commutingHugo

1975,1978, 1981b;

Naim,

1971;Mantra, 981).Much

earlier,

anneft

1916:61) similarly

howed

that

nnovation

n

transport

n

Indonesia

was influential

n

producinghanges

in

the ypes nd

evels

of

population

mobility.

In this ectionwe havesummarizedome of themajor rgumentsut

forward

o

explain

nonpermanent

igration

n

ndonesia.

We now

have

a sub-

stantial

ody

of

empirical

nowledgeoncerning

he

causes

of

nonpermanent

migration.

s has been

suggested

n

the

discussion,

here s

now

a

need

for

researchirected

ot nly owardloser

nvestigation

f

theforces

nfluencing

nonpernmanent

obility,

ut also

toward

he

ntegrating

f what

we

already

know

oncerning

he

auses

of this

mobility

nto

coherentheoreticalrame-

work.

Implications

of

nonpermanent

migration

A

fewof

themoremportantheoreticalnd

policy mplications

rising

ut

of

the

previous

iscussion

illbe

briefly entioned. ne

mportant

nitial

onsid-

eration

s whetherhe

present igh

evel of

nonpermanent

obility

s

simply

transitional

hase that

will

ultimately

e

replaced

y permanent

elocation

f

many

movers o

urban

reas as social

change

nd

economic

evelopmentro-




17/26

74

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ceed. The general

ormulationsfSkeldon 1977) and

Nelson 1978), based

predominantlyn LatinAmerican

xperience,would suggest hat his s the

case, as does someof

theAfricaniteratureVanBinsbergen

ndMeilink 978:

11).

The empiricalvidence rom

ndonesia, owever, s

somewhat

mixed n

this espect.Maude 1980) suggests hatMinangkabauutmigrationromWest

Sumatras becoming

more ermanent

ver ime, ndRambe's 1977) studyn

SouthKalimantanoints o a transition

rom onpermanento

permanentut-

movementmong he

Banjarese

of

Alabio.

On the other and,many f the

other tudies,

specially hosebased n

Java,found hat hegreatmajorityf

nonpermanent

igrants ave no intentionf shifting

ermanentlyo their r-

ban

destinations.

t

wouldbe prematureo nfer

rom his

hat heirmigration

will

remain ircular,

ormostmovers ave onlybeen

engaged n circularmi-

gration or fewyears.At presentt seems

hat, ormanyndonesian onper-

manentmovers, heirmobilitys notperceived s a preliminarytage eforen

ultimate

ermanent

elocation

f

themselvesnd

their amilies. heevidence s

that

ommutingndcircularmigration

remore han

imply

means

o

test he

destination

nvironmentefore ettling

here.Many emporary oversn ndo-

nesia

xhibit strong

nd

apparently

ong-term

ommitment

o

bilocality, pt-

ing for

thecombination f activities n

both rural nd urban reas that

nonpermanentigration

trategyllowsthem.

Anothermportantonsideration

s the mplications

f ncreased onper-

manentmigrationor roader ocialandeconomic hange n ndonesia.Much

ofthe

migrationboth

ermanent

nd

nonpermanent)

an be seenas a

response

to the substantial

patial, ectoral, nd class

inequalities

within ndonesia.

There

as been long

historyfconcentrationfpublic

ndprivatenvestment

and

resource

evelopmentctivity-andhence

expansion

n

employmentp-

portunities-in

articularocalities

especiallyJakarta, few

other rban en-

ters, nd regions f

resource xtractionuch as plantationsnd

timber,

il,

coal,

and mineral

reas).Much

of

the

nonpermanentigrationescribed

ar-

lierflows rom reas n

which here asbeen very ittle

nvestment

nd

devel-

opmentoward egions hathave receivednvestmentar utofproportiono

their hare

f

thenational

opulation.While

t s

clear hat hese

patial

ocio-

economic

nequalities

re

a

major

ausalfactor

n

nonpermanent

igration,

he

critical

uestion

emains

whetherhat

mobility

n

turn

as an effect n

those

inequalitiesnd,

f

so,

whether

t

tends

o

ameliorate r exacerbate hem.

According o one main ine of

argument,he

transferf income

from

urban o

rural

reas,

whichhave

been starved

f

investment,

s

leading

o a

reduction n

social

and

economic

disparities:

.

.

.since

netrural

migration

s

concentratedn

particular

reas,groups

nd

seasons,

smallnational low

an

considerablyedistributeesourcesmong nd within ural ommunitiesnd

between ural nd

urban

reas.

Most neoclassical conomistswould

expect

voluntaryopulationmovementso

reduce

both

nefficiency

nd

inequality

(Lipton, 980:1). Indeed

most f the ndonesian

tudies eviewed

n this

aper

refer o

a substantialackflow

f

money

nd

goods

to the

place

of

origin

s a

result

f

nonpermanent

igration.

n

theWestJava

tudy,

or

xample

Hugo,

1975,

1978),

all

temporary

overs

emitted oney o their amilies nd 81




18/26

Graeme J.

Hugo

75

percent

rought ackgoods. Among

ommuter

ouseholds,

n

average f 60

percentf

theirncomewas derived

rom

emittances,hile ircularmigrants'

remittancesccounted

ornearly alf heir ouseholds' otal

ncome n aver-

age.

Nevertheless,uch fthe ecentiteratureConnell, 980;Lipton, 980)

has

suggested hat he

mpact fmoney lows o

thevillageof

origin

s small

and n

many ases even

negativewhen

onsidered

n netterms.

The

sparse

evidence

uggests hatnet

remittancesre quite small relative o

village

n-

come, are

concentrated

n richer

illagehouseholds

nlikely

o

suffer rom

capital

onstraints,ndtend o be

little sed tofinance

nvestment,xcept

n

house-building

.

.

(Lipton,

1980:

3).

It

is

noticeable,

however,

in

Lipton's

(1980)

review f theremittance

iteraturehat

trong mphasis

s

placedon

monetary

lows

enerated ymore-or-less

ermanent igrantsndvery ong-

termmigrants.et, s Fan and Stretton1980: 23) suggest,From hepoint f

view

of the

rural ector,

emittancesepresentn

important

enefitf

circular

migration.

hilepermanent igrants

ay lso sendfunds

o

their

illage, he

amounts re

unlikely

o be as

large

or as

regular.

The WestJava

tudy

er-

tainlyupportshe

ontentionhat he

netremittancef

nonpermanentigrants

were

substantially

reater nd more ignificanthan

hose

of

permanent i-

grants.

Moreover, he

studymakesclear that,

nder urrent

onditions, he

flow

of remittancess

absolutely ritical

o the

well-being

f

manyvillage

households. rom heperspectivefrural evelopment,owever,t should e

mentionedhat hebulk f

these

emittancesre used topurchase

hemundane

necessitiesf ife food,

lothing,

tc.); and while here

s

some

nvestment

n

housingnd and, mounts

irected

oward

mployment-generatingnterprises

are

relatively

mall.

A

clear

understandingf theredistributive

mpact fnonpermanenti-

grationnIndonesia

must wait moredetailed

tudies f

remittancesnd the

effect

f

migration

n the

village.

Nevertheless,

xisting

tudies n

Java nd

manyparts f the Outer slands

ndicate hatwhen

both nonpermanent

nd

permanent igrantsreconsidered, henetflow f remittancesends o be in

favor

f

the

village,

hat

he easonal r

periodicoss of aborfrom

he

village

rarely

esults

n

any oss

of

overall

productivity

e.g., Colfer, 981), nd that

many ndividuals nd

villagecommunities ould

suffer

ire

consequences

should

heir ccess to

income-earningpportunities

n

cities nd other enters

of

investmente curtailed

n

any

way.

Proponentsf

the

rgument

upporting

he edistributiveffects

f

popu-

lation

mobility lso

suggest

hat

he

movers hemselves

ill

be

changedby

their

xperiencest their

estination,

specially

f t s

an

urban

rea,

and that

thiswill ead them o be innovatorsnd developmentaleaderswhen hey e-

turn o

the

village. Again

there s

little vidence rom ndonesia

o

support

judgment

ither

way.

It

is clear

that

eturning

igrants

re

generally ighly

respected

n

thevillagebecause

of

their

reaterxperience

nd

that

ome

have

taken

eading

oles

n

their

illages;yet here

s

little vidence

o

suggest

hat

they

ave

challenged

hetraditional

uthoritytructure

f

the

village.

The

second

main ine of

argument

egarding

he

relationship

etween




19/26

76

Circular Migration

in Indonesia

nonpermanent

igrationnd developmentn Indonesia

s that hisform

f

mobilitycts,at

best, o preservehe urrentattern

f wide nequalities

nd,

at worst, o exacerbate

hose nequalities. his argument

uggests hat he ir-

cularmobilityf abor einforceshe

xisting attern

f spatial oncentrationf

investmentn a fewprivilegedreas.The fact hat laces ikeJakartaannow

draw abor rom muchwider rea

than as everbeenpossible,without

aving

to provide ll of the workers nd

their amilies

withpermanent ousing,

schooling, ealth

acilities, tilities,

nd so on, may nfact

e

encouraging

he

concentrationf investmentn those

centers. he

destinationreas and the

local classeswith

olitical ndeconomic ower ain

doublebenefit.

irst, he

supply f abor

s so plentifulhat

wagesand conditionsan be maintained

t

low levels; andthere s some evidence

e.g.,

Breman, 979) to suggest hat

circularmigrantsrawn rom distant

reaconstitute

more ocileworkforce.

Second, hese lassesdo nothavetocontributevia taxation,tc.) to theprovi-

sion of overheads

permanent ousing,

tc.) for he

families

f the

circular

migrants ho remaint home.

Moreover,f circular

migrantshouldbecome

ill orotherwise

alluponbad times,

hey reable to seekout heir illage-based

social ndwelfare

ervices. n allofthese espects,

hen, heurban-based

lites

derive enefits

hile

hemovers nd their amiliesncur

osts.

In

short,

hisargumentuggests

hat

nonpermanent

obility

s not a

satisfactoryong-term

olutionto village poverty

nd maldistribution

f

wealth. n villageJava, ircularmobility ay ct na similarwaytothe gri-

culturalnvolution

echanisms escribed y Geertz

1963)

as

another

means

wherebyhepoor

reprovided

ith pportunities

o

earnustenough

o survive

at a baresubsistence

evel

but

re

given

ittle

pportunity

or

vertical

mobility

to mprove heir

iving onditions.hus,nonpermanent

obility

s really nly

a

stop-gapmeasure

hatwill

maintain

urrentnequalities.

ts

very uccess

n

providingemporary

elief

may,

n

fact,

be

counterproductive

n the

onger

term ecauseit diverts ttention

rom he

only

strategy

hat

will

ultimately

assist

the poor

n

rural

reas-a fundamental

ecentralization

f

investment

andcapital way from ities ndareasofresourceoncentrationoward ural

areas

and,

in

particular,

he

peasant gricultural

ector.

Current

nowledge

f

nonpermanent igration

n Indonesia

ends at

least artial upporto both inesof

rgumentutlined

bove. On

the

ne hand,

theres no

doubt

hat

rom

short-term

erspective,ertain conomic

enefits

usually

ccrue

othe

ndividualmovers,

heir amilies, nd

to

some

xtent heir

villages f origin.

n the ther and,nonpermanent

igration ost ikely lso

preserves

nd perhaps xacerbatesxisting nequalities,

nd the widespread

occurrence

f this

movement

may

n factdivert ttention

rom he

ong-term

needfor more quitablenvestmentf total esourcesnrural reas nd peas-

ant

agriculture.

Bothmajor rguments

ave

significantmplications

or

policy.

The

im-

plication f the

firstrgument

s that olicymakershould ncourage

onper-

manent

mobility ecause

of

ts

positive

evelopmentalffects-namely,

net

flow f wealth nd

perhaps

deas

from

ity

o

village

nd

a

reduction

f rural-

urban

nequalities.




20/26

Graeme J.

Hugo

77

The second rgument

as quitedifferentolicy mplications.f

nonper-

manentmigrationn fact

onsolidatesnequalities

nd preventsheformation

of a

significantrban-based

roletariat,t wouldappearpreferableo

encour-

age permanent igration nd

discouragenonpermanent

igration. ipton

(1980:3) has summed p theposition uccinctly:Even if evidenceon the

impact f emigrationn rural

reas eads to gloomy

onclusions, his oesnot

mean that . .

migration

hould be impeded. No; the mplications re

rather

that, incedevelopment

lmost ertainlymplies

teady abour ransfersutof

agriculture

. .

governmentshould top llocating

nvestmentnd ncentives

in ways hat ncourage

xcessive,prematurend,

therefore,isappointinga-

bour

ransfer.his means

orrectingnvestmentnd incentive iases

against

therural ector.

It is clear thatwe do

not yetknowenough bouthow

nonpermanent

migrations related o thewider ocial and economic ontext n which t is

occurring

n

ndonesia nd ts

mpact

n income

istribution

both patial

nd

vertical). n

the absenceof such knowledge t

would be prematureo

make

definitive

ronouncementsnwhat olicy

nitiatives,

f

any, hould e

taken.

In

a broader

olicy ontext, owever, t is

absolutely ritical hat

og-

nizance e taken f the cale,

causes,

and

mpact

f

nonpermanentigration.

Regional

evelopment

lanners end o take ccount f permanent

igration;

but, s Fan and Stretton1980:

21) havepointed ut, f patternf nonperma-

nentmigrations ofsignificancena region then he onsequences fmigra-

tory lows

maybe quitedifferent

rom hose enerally erceived yresearchers

and

policymakerswho tend o treat ll

migrations permanent. ne

impor-

tant

onsequence

s the

nterdependence

etween ifferentectors

especially

theurban nd

rural ectors)

reated y nonpermanentigration.olicies

nd

programs

nitiated

n

theurban

ector

will

often ave unanticipatedpin-off

effectsn

therural

ector hat re transmitted

hrough

he

migrantse.g.,

re-

strictionsn

job opportunitiespento circular

migrants

n

the

city,

s has

occurred

n

Jakarta).

imilarly,

he

mpact

f some

policies

nd

programs

ni-

tiatednrural reasmaybe felt ncities.

It

is apparent hat here re several

majorgaps

in

our knowledge

nd

understanding

f

nonpermanent

obility

n

ndonesia-its

scale, causes,

con-

sequences,

nd

implications

n

the

broader ocial

and

economic ontext f

national nd

regional evelopment

nd

change.Equally,

t is

apparent

hat

demographers

an

play

a

major

role n

increasing

ur

understanding.

ne

of

thepioneers f the

tudy

f

circulation,

itchell

1978:6-7)

has stated

enti-

ments

choed

by many

who have

followed im

n

the

tudy

f the

phenome-

non: . . . thetopic has, in my opinion,remainedremarkablyntractable o

thorough oing analysis.

. . .

Part of this

analyticalrecalcitrance erives from

the

greatdifficulties

n

collecting

uitable ata to

carry dequate heoretical

formulations.

The

studies eviewed ere an leave no doubt

egarding

ither

he

ub-

stantial

cale

of

mpermanent

obilityn ndonesia r ts

economic nd

social

significance.t

behooves s to

develop strategyor btaining

ure

stimates




21/26

78 Circular

Migration in

Indonesia

ofthe

volume, ocation, irection,nd structuralharacteristics

f this orm

f

mobility. his nevitably

eans

ncorporatingppropriateuestionsn the en-

sus

and arge-scale ational ample urveys.

A

number f possibilitiesmme-

diately resent

hemselves. he firsts duringhefull ensus ount o askboth

a person's sualplace ofresidence ndhisplace ofresidence n thenightfthe

census.This de facto/de

ure comparison

as carried utwith ome uccess

n

the

1930 ndonesian ensus Volkstelling,

933-1936),enabling he colonial

census akers o create special category f

persons

emporarilyresent.

This

s a particularlymportantriority.n

addition,t wouldbe

highly esir-

able

to nclude

workplace uestion

n the

ensus.

Unfortunately

t

could

not

be

included

n

thefull ount,which s restrictedo

four r five uestions,

nd

would have to be

incorporatedn thesamplecensus.6 Sample

surveys hat

adopt luster-type

ampling rocedures

reatedifficultiesecause census-de-

finedmovements not a completelybiquitous opulationharacteristicnd

movers end o

be

concentratedn particularreas, eading o problemsn in-

flating

he

ample igures

o the

otal

opulation.

he

design

f the

workplace

question

nd the

tabulation

lan

would need extensive esearch nd

frequent

testing. he question

would need to be

applied to all occupations

eld

by

Documents

Circular Migration in Indonesia. Hugo