Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES,
NON-FARM SECTORS AND FARMING PRACTICES
IN YOGYAKARTA SPECIAL REGION (DIY)

R. Rijanta*

Intisari
Tulisan ini bertujuan menilai hubungan pertanian dan nonpertanian di tingkat rumah tangga
di DIY, mengingat petani dengan lahan kecil mendominasi penguasaan lahan di perdesaan.
Sampel rumah tangga dipilih secara random untuk mewakili empat tipe zona agro ekologikal di
DIY dan mewakili perdesaan urban. Analisisnya menggunakan pengukuran statistik deskriptif.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan rumah tangga perdesaan yang mempunyai aktivitas terkait dengan
nonpertanian cenderung memakai alat pertanian modern dan membayar buruh. Akan tetapi,
beberapa petani pemilik lahan kecil di daerah perdesaan DIY yang tersisa terpaksa menggunakan
pendapatan dari nonpertanian yang didapatnya dari daerah urban untuk meningkatkan hasil
pertaniannya.
Kata kunci: hubungan desa kota, faktor pertanian, praktik pertanian, perdesaan DIY

Introduction absorption rather than a sector passively

supplying labour to the industrializing urban
The issues of rural diversification through
sector. While the labour absorption of the
the development of non-farm sectors as a
agricultural sector in the aggregate appeared
critical component in rural development in
to be limited, it was the creation of rural non-
developing countries have attracted a
farm employment through rural small-scale
considerable attention of scholars and
industries, trade and services that was more
development advisors since the seventies. A
crucial in the restructured strategy (Eapen,
large number of studies have investigated the
1999).
role of non-farm economic activities for rural
development. Evidence from the developing DIY is well known as a part of Indonesia
world suggests that economic diversity in the where economic transformation has jumped
countryside has the potential to foster local from agriculture to service sectors rather than
economic growth and alleviate the rural-urban to manufacturing sectors. The province has
income gap and rural poverty (Davis and been integrated into the capitalist economy
Bezemer, 2003). Given the failures of the since the colonial period through the
industrialization strategy to trickle down wealth establishment of sugar cane plantations and
to the rural poor there is a felt need to its processing industries, and now is among
restructure the development strategy of the the most populous areas in rural Java with a
past. The rural agricultural sector was to be very high pressure on agricultural land. During
regarded as having greater flexibility in labour the era of green revolution and the oil boom

*
Senior Lecturer at the Department of Regional Development, Faculty of Geography and Researcher at the
Centre for Regional Development Planning Studies, Gadjah Mada University.

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 75

 R. Rijanta

decades of the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural are often attributable to the development of
commercialization and remarkably generous agricultural sector (White, 1986 and Basant,
government investments in rural physical and 1994). Thus, it is not surprising that rapid
social infrastructure have been the major agricultural growth has been suggested as an
starting points for the accelerated process of alternative development strategy for less
rural diversification (Rijanta and Suhardjo, developed countries (Mellor, 1976, 1985).
2003). The increasing availability of rural Moreover, in the context of rural Asia, a
infrastructure throughout the province has development strategy focused on small farms
increased the opportunities for social and will generate rapid, equitable and
spatial mobility to large sections of rural geographically dispersed growth, because of
dwellers. At the same time, the increase of real labour intensive linkages with the rural non-
incomes from agricultural production has farm economy (Haggblade et al., 1989). The
provided a basis for the rise of rural-based non- strategy is deemed superior to either an
farm activities (Manning, 1988; Jones, 1984; industry-led import substitution strategies or to
Rotge et al., 2000; Maurer, 1991). export-led growth strategies, especially in the
The most evident changes since the 1980s context of an unfavourable environment for
have been the improvement of rural-urban expanded global trade and finance.
connections leading to the diversification of
employment and income opportunities in the The Objectives
rural areas of the province (Rotge, 1992; 1993; The paper examines an intricate
Rotge et al., 2000; Titus et al., 1994; Huisman relationship between the developments of non-
and Kragten, 1994). The excessive growth of farm sector under various levels of rural-urban
public and private transportation means has linkages in the development of the farm side of
also enabled rural labour to get involved in a rural household economy in various agro-
urban jobs with higher real incomes. The ecological conditions of DIY. The relationship
improved rural-urban connections have led to between non-farm and farm sides of household
more productive utilisation of land and human economy is important to understand, as this
resources in rural areas. At the same time, would give a better insight to the possible
higher incomes gained from urban jobs have contribution of the non-farm economy to
considerably strengthened the purchasing agricultural development in a predominantly
power of the rural dwellers and consequently small farming economy.
lowered the threshold for various goods and
services. This may have allowed the growth of The Research Methods
more rural and regional based rather than city
Considering the great variations of the agro-
based non-farm activities. The province shows
ecological conditions in the province a set of
a considerable diversification in agro-ecological
villages has been selected for a detailed
conditions and accessibility (Titus et al., 1994;
household survey. Variation in agro-ecological
Huisman, 1994), and thus offers interesting
conditions in the province is simplified into four
opportunities for studying differential responses
categories namely (1) dry upland subsistent
to rural diversification in the various types of
agriculture, (2) wet upland commercialized
areas.
agriculture, (3) wet lowland intensive agriculture
The growth and development of rural non- with sawah as a predominant land use and rice
farm sectors in small holding farming region as an important crop, and (4) wet lowland

76 Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262

 Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

agriculture where sawah is less dominant land private universities, an airport, some factories,
use. These categories of agro-ecological four-star hotels and many other high-order
conditions are derived from systematic service centres. It is also important to note that
classification using two variables representing the economy of the villagers has been
agricultural conditions and village elevations. transformed toward the importance of non-farm
The topographic map of the province has been activities.
be referred to determine upland and lowland In order to arrive at the household samples,
areas and the most dominant types of land use a hamlet (dusun) had been purposively
as a representation of the agricultural systems selected to best represent the characteristics
in the province. Given the limited number of of a selected village. The dusun is selected
villages covered by the URGE1 database as purposively to be as close as possible to the
the main data source for this research, it is conditions of the sample villages as just
possible to select four villages representing the described. Thus, five dusuns are selected to
above mentioned criteria (Table 1). represent five villages under study. Household
Table 1 samples are drawn from the most recent list of
Schematic Presentation of The Types household heads as available in the records of
of Research Villages by Agro-Ecological kepala dusun’s office. The household sample
Conditions as Represented by Elevation
is randomly taken from the list of kepala
and Types of Farming Systems
dusuns. Some 50 samples are taken from each
Elevation dusun, thus in total some 250 households are
Lowland Upland available. As the sample of households in each
dusun is derived from different total numbers,
Srimulyo Wonokerto they are not proportional in nature. Thus, the
Wetland (Piyungan, (Turi,
Bantul) Sleman) sample set allows for an interregional
Types of
Farming
comparison but does not statistically represent
Brosot Tepus the general picture of the province as they are
Systems (Galur, (Tepus,
Dryland
Kulon Gunung taken from different size of population. Data
Progo) Kidul) processing was done through simple statistical
process using SPSS Win Version 11.0 that
allows for various data manipulation necessary
Apart from these four rural villages to achieve the research objectives. Some
representing varied agro ecological conditions techniques ranging from simple tabulation and
in the province, Maguwoharjo, another village cross tabulation were employed to identify
in the urban sprawl of Yogyakarta is selected interregional patterns of distribution of various
to serve as a control village. The village is variables related to rural diversification.
experiencing a rapid economic and spatial
transformation, as it is shown by the growth of Theoretical Perspectives
urban-related land use and economic activities Diversification of the rural economy in areas
in large scales. The village is a host of some with an inadequate supply of land and an
1
University Research for Graduate Education Program of the Ministry of Education and Culture provided
financial supports for a survey research covering 12 villages in DIY to facilitate graduate studies at the
Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University from 1996 – 1998. This study focuses on five out of twelve
villages available from the URGE Database, representing four distinct agro-ecological conditions as present
in DIY.

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 77

 R. Rijanta

abundant surplus of labour has led to varied, very likely that rural diversification in the
and sometimes, contradictory interpretations. province is strongly stimulated by the higher
First, rural diversification has been viewed as educational attainment.
a symptom of economic marginalization In a more recent observation, Huisman and
(Hartman, 1985; Long, 1984; Harris, 1991). This Kragten (1997) arrived at the same conclusion
interpretation is based on the assumption that that in Bantul regency of DIY non-farm rural
involuntary involvement in non-farm activities activities are not marginal by definition, but can
is often the rule rather than an exception. Thus, be viable dynamic undertakings. In their
according to this view, rural non-farm activities research village of Manding, rather spectacular
are explained by the supply-push rather than developments in the sub sector of leather good
demand-pull factors. Often rural non-farm processing has taken place. Cottage industries
activities are undertaken as a part of there have grown to medium-sized firms in a
occupational multiplicity for a bare subsistence short time span only. Farmers in the area
(cf. White, 1976, 1979, 1986; Jones, 1984 and increasingly face the problems of finding farm
Hart, 1986). labourers, which shows that the non-farm
Second, rural diversification has been activities have started to out-compete
viewed in a more optimistic way as a capital agricultural work in this micro context. In an
accumulation in the rural areas. This process increasing number of households, considerable
of capital accumulation is seen as a corner proof of capital accumulation has been found.
stone for further growth and development of No explicit statements on the effects of non-
the rural economy (Svensson, 1991) as well farm development on agricultural development
as further social differentiation (Breman and in the village have been made by these authors.
Wiradi, 2004). This view asserts that rural Mellor (1976) suggests to put agriculture in
diversification in Java cannot only be the centre stage and argued that rapid growth
understood as an involutionary process in the in agricultural production, through effects of
Geertz (1974) connotation or as a socio- linkages with non-farm production, can
economic marginalization (Titus, et al., 1994). stimulate expansion of productive and
Rotge (1992) and Rotge, et al., (1995 and 2000) employment intensive small scale
in their recent studies in the province have industrialization. The logic is that increased in
shown that the higher level of rural food production, based on cost decreasing
diversification in terms of employment sources ‘green revolution’ technology results in a large
reflects a dynamic economic development. net national income. If this income accrues to
Maurer (1991) argues that the diversification relatively large farmers, who do not spend the
of the rural economy in the DIY and Java in entire additional amount of food grains
general is not only a result of successful consumption or on capital or import intensive
agricultural development supported by the oil- commodities, the demand for local non-farm
boom gain but is also related to the higher goods and services will be stimulated. Thus,
educational attainment and skill improvement the increasing demand for various goods and
leading to job specialization away from services in rural areas creates a favourable
agriculture, rather than occupational multiplicity environment for the growth of rural non-farm
(cf. White, 1976). It is notable from the fact that activities.
educational attainment and human
development indexes in the province are the Growth of such non-farm consumption
highest in Indonesia (UNDP, 2001). Thus, it is expenditure was seen as the main driving force

78 Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262

 Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

behind rural diversification, and thus rural development. The process was initiated by a
development. However, he also envisaged the highly productive and commercialized
possibilities of productive reinvestment of agriculture, based on an egalitarian land
agricultural surpluses by large commercial resources distribution because of successful
farmers to take advantage of the rural non-farm implementation of land reform in the past
investment opportunities that were created by (Shand, 1986; Ho, 1979; 1982). This gave an
increased demand (Mellor, 1976). Also in line incentive to owner cultivators and productivity
with this view is White (1986) who asserts that of smallholdings was lifted with modern
the agricultural income gained by medium and technology on the small intensively cropped
large farm households in rural areas will be holdings. The increasing rural prosperity has
followed by a higher expenditure on better expanded the demand for producer and
quality food and non-food materials. These consumer goods and services and thereby
commodities are most likely produced in rural stimulating linkages with rural-based activities
areas and thus leading to the growth of rural of manufacturing, distribution and servicing
non-farm employment. Islam (1984) also (Shand, 1986). The growth of rural non-farm
suggests that an important precondition for a activities in the East Asian countries is reflecting
sustained growth of non-farm activities capable an economic progress, or in the words of
of generating attractive returns would be a Koppel and Hawkins (1994) they are following
dynamic and egalitarian agricultural sector. The a developmental path of rural diversification.
linkage mechanism for mutually reinforcing A village study from the Philippine as
growth of the two sectors will not work fully reported by Angeles-Reyez (1994) reveals that
unless agricultural growth is sufficiently the village has been experiencing greater
egalitarian. landlessness due to increased population
The emergence of rural non-farm activities pressure and land reform regulations,
is also seen as a sign of economic decreasing farm size, and more unequal
development. Those who support this distribution of farms. This situation has released
interpretation commonly argue that the labour for non-farm activity both in the village
emergence of non-rural farm activities is a and nearby towns. The relative incomes of large
transitional phenomenon that will disappear as farmers increased significantly because of
the rural economy is growing (Kada, 1987). growing share of land rent accrued to them.
Experiences of the East Asian nations are The relative income position of the landless
commonly quoted by those supporting this workers would have deteriorated if not for the
interpretation in which the growth of rural non- marked increases in non-farm works. The
farm activities are not only bringing sustainable stronger linkages through modern highway
economic growth but also leading to more equal systems and transportation facilities stimulated
income distribution and more decentralized the increased commitment to non-farm work.
development spatially (Ho, 1979, 1982), Undoubtedly, the increase of non-farm rural
(Oshima, 1984, 1987), (Anderson and employment opportunities has moderated the
Leiserson, 1980) and (Balassa, 1991). deterioration of income distribution within rural
The East Asian type of rural diversification areas.
is characterized by a very high and sustainable Comparing the situation in Taiwan and the
economic growth with an egalitarian income Philippines, Ranis and Stewart (1993) found
distribution and spatially decentralized rural that growth linkages from agricultural in the

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 79

 R. Rijanta

former are much larger than the later. In Taiwan, This study confirms that rural diversification
land and rural incomes are much more equally in forms of non-farm activities would bring to
distributed. This is likely to lead to greater an improvement in the household agricultural
agricultural to non-farm linkages, since for any assets and more advance farming practices.
given income level, a more equal distribution Thus, rural diversification is believed to have
tends to be associated with less expenditure some positive effects to the development of
on urban and imported consumer goods, while agricultural sector in given area through
the agricultural technology used by small farms reinvestment of parts of the surplus gained from
in a uni-modal land distribution is also likely to non-farm activities. Investments on farm
be produced locally. Household consumption implements are very substantially higher in
patterns from their research further support this households with non-farm rather than without
interpretation. Another study from India non-farm activities as discussed earlier.
(Grabowski, 1995) shows that agricultural However, this section gives a closer look to the
development is among an important factor performance of non-farm households with as
explaining the non-farm income levels in which rural-based and urban-linked type of non-farm
an increase of 100 rupees of agricultural activities in accumulating agricultural
incomes will result in an increase of 64 rupees resources.
of non-farm incomes. This breaks down to 25 Rural diversification in a small farming
rupees to small towns and 39 rupees in the region of DIY gives some effects on the
rural town, indicating the important role of the increase of land resources controlled by the
smaller centres in rural non-farm development. respective households, more especially those
with some economic linkages to urban areas.
Results and Discussion In villages with relatively abundant land
A traditional view to the relation between resources such as Tepus and Wonokerto,
farm and non-farm activities at household level households with access to urban economy
is that the surplus gained from the farm may through urban-linked non-farm activities
be further reinvested on non-farm activities reported more gain of lands rather than those
(Mellor, 1976; White, 1986; Kada, 1987) as rural-based counterparts. The same pattern is
demonstrated in the experiences of some occurring in Maguwoharjo, the most urbanized
present day developing countries. This does village where greater percentage of urban-
not mean that the rural economies of linked households gain lands more than their
developing countries do not diversify rural-based counterparts (Table 2). Different
accordingly due to the limitation of the small patterns are reported from Brosot and Srimulyo
scale of agricultural in producing surplus gain. where small farm size is predominant. No land
It is commonly accepted that rural transfer is reported in Brosot that an
diversification may occur in rural areas either assessment whether urban-linked households
with or without agricultural income surpluses. perform better in land acquisition is not possible
Recent experiences in developing countries to make. In Srimulyo Village, there is a rather
show that the flow of resources is mainly surprising observation where rural-based non-
occurring from non-farm surplus to the farm farm households have been able to accumulate
resource and activities rather than the other lands better than their urban-based
way round. counterparts are.

80 Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262

 Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

Table 2
Size of Lands Obtained from Other Villagers by Villages and
Types of Rural-Urban Linkages2, 1998 (percent)

Brosot Srimulyo Tepus Wonokerto Maguwoharjo

Land Size
(M2) Rural- Urban- Rural- Urban- Rural- Urban- Rural- Urban- Rural- Urban-
Based Linked Based Linked Based Linked Based Linked Based Linked
None 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Up to 999 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,8 0,0 0,0 28,6 7,7 12,5 0,0
1000 - 2499 0,0 0,0 0,0 15,4 11,1 0,0 7,1 7,7 0,0 5,1
2500 - 4999 0,0 0,0 9,1 7,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
5000 - 7499 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 11,1 13,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
=>7500 0,0 0,0 90,9 73,1 77,8 86,7 64,3 84,6 87,5 94,9
Total (%) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Total (n) 12 34 11 26 15 18 14 13 8 39
Source: Primary Data, 1998.

This means that to some rural dwellers by the lack of use of various modern farm
among important way to accumulate wealth is implements (Figure1). This is most probably
through participation in non-farm activities with due to a diseconomy of scale of investments
urban linkage nature. Incomes from the urban in modern farm implements. The small sized
economy can be transferred to the village and farms in the research villages do not allow for
lands can easily be purchased when an such a long-term investment. Nevertheless, it
opportunity is emerging. Land accumulation seems to be rather premature to conclude that
through urban income surpluses is among urban-linked non-farm affects agricultural
important mechanism in which the non-farm development positively. Some worrying trends
economy affects the agricultural sector at can be observed from the farming practices at
household level. the household level of the urban-linked and
Albeit a strong differences in performance rural-based non-farm households.
in acquiring land resources between the two If this interpretation is correct, then there is
groups of non-farm households, rural new fact that albeit the non-farm households
diversification does not give any impacts on the tend to spend more on farming activities rather
significant differences in farm implement than the farm ones, the effects of rural
ownership between the urban-linked and rural- diversification on agricultural development is
based non-farm households. No clear patterns constrained by the small farm size operated
can be observed from the data, but one can by most farming households. Thus, the effects
conclude that both groups do not report a of rural diversification would not give a
significant degree of mechanization as shown maximum benefit to agricultural development

2
Rural based type households are households without any members working in the urban areas, urban
linked type households are households with at least one members working in urban areas of DIY or

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 81

 R. Rijanta

Figure 1
Ownership of Some Selected Farm Implements
of Rural-Based and Urban-Linked Non-Farm Households by Villages, 1998

on areas with smaller farm size. On the Besides, the unfavourable government policy
contrary, areas with greater farm size would on agricultural commodity price has been well
benefit more from reinvestment of surplus known as one the stumbling blocks for
gained from the non-farm economy of the agricultural development in Indonesia. Recent
households. As small farming households reduction of subsidy from prices of farm inputs,
commonly dominates the villages under study, import licensing of some agricultural
only limited effects of rural diversification on commodities and the price intervention through
agricultural development can be reported. Few various mechanisms give many disincentives
rich farmers in the predominantly small farming investments on farming activities. In other
villages may have been able to reinvest their words, parts of the agricultural development
non-farm surplus on farm implements and other policy in Indonesia may have hampered rather
expenditure in farming. than stimulated the process of rural
From this point, one can see that the diversification beyond agricultural sector
process of agricultural development fuelled by through various linkages.
income surplus obtained through rural This raises an important issue concerning
diversification as occurring elsewhere (Evans the policy mix in agricultural development in
and Ngau, 1991) cannot be established in DIY. which the balance between incentives and
The specifically small farm size in the province disincentives should be maintained. Under the
prohibits reinvestment of non-farm surplus. existing economic situation, providing a cheap

82 Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262

 Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

price for various commodities is favourable for the rural based and urban linked households.
the government, urban population and non- But, this is only valid in few villages under study.
farm producers utilizing agricultural The wet lowland village shows a notable
commodities as their production inputs. But, this exception where expenditure on farm inputs
situation does not give a necessary condition made by the urban-linked households is rather
for agricultural development in most rural areas significantly higher than that of the rural-based
of DIY. Under the existing farm size and households (Figure 2). This is also in line with
intensity of farming, it would be difficult if not the use of paid labour in farming. The urban-
impossible to improve the income of farming linked households in the village behave
households without increasing the price of rationally in farming by hiring farm labour and
agricultural commodities. Price increase is the at the same time concentrating on non-farm
only opportunity to boost the incomes of rural activities as their main occupation.
households through farming, as higher intensity Apart from the wet lowland village, urban-
of application of modern inputs on their small linked households in the wet upland village also
farms would bring to an unsustainable farming hire more farm labour than rural-based
practice. Under the existing agricultural households do. On the contrary, rural-based
technology, the law of diminishing returns as households in this village spend more on
applied in agricultural production seems to be modern farming inputs. The rural-based
a stumbling block for agricultural development households seem to be rational risk takers who
and thus farming incomes. are willing to spend on farm inputs but hire less
Nevertheless, a thin ray of hope on the labour from out side the households. This is
effects of non-farm surplus on agricultural possible as the rural-based households in the
development may be reflected by the strong context of wet upland village rural-based
tendency of differences in the use of modern households are only involved in non-farm
inputs and external labour in farming between activities with local linkages. Thus, greater

Figure 2
Annual Expenditure Patterns on Farm Inputs
of Rural-based and Urban-linked Households, 1998

ANNU AL E XPE NDI T U R E ON F AR M I NPUT S PE R HE CT AR E OF

F AR M L AND B Y TYPE S OF R UR AL U R B AN L I NK AGE S
Expenditure/ Ha (Thousan

1000
Rural based Urban Linked
800

600

400

200

0
Brosot S rimulyo Tepus Wonokerto Maguwoharjo

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 83

 R. Rijanta

attention to farming is possible as in fact farming The relationship between the farm and non-
is a primary occupation to most rural-based farm sides of the household economy has been
non-farm households. To sum up, rural-based examined through the differences between the
households tend to intensify the use of own urban-linked and rural-based non-farm
labour in combination with high level of input households in the procurement of lands,
use in order to maximize agricultural mechanization, use of farm implements,
production. On the contrary, urban-linked expenditure on farm inputs and hired labour.
households tend to accumulate wealth mainly Urban-linked non-farm households tend to be
via non-farm pursuits and put farming as able to attain land purchase more than the rural-
secondary activities. Thus, it is plausible for this based counterparts. With a small exception in
group of rural households to hire more labour the dry upland village, rural non-farm
in compensation to their absence from full time households tend to spend more on farm inputs
farming and using less modern inputs in farming and hire more external labour for farming. This
practices. indicates a situation where their income
surpluses from the urban non-farm pursuits are
Conclusions further invested on lands, farm inputs and
Rural non-farm economies that grow in the labour that leas to better farming practices. It
studied areas are commonly reflecting an is valid in most of the studied villages. Thus, it
optimal combination of various opportunities can be generalized that the development of
and limitation at household and regional level. urban-linked rural non-farm sectors tends to
The nature of non-farm activities carried out benefit the rural agricultural sector. This implies
by the rural dwellers reflects higher aspiration that under the absence or decreasing amount
for better living under various agro ecological of subsidy to farmers in Indonesia, non-farm
zones. Given the inability of agricultural sector economy can be a source of funding for
to provide employment to most of the youth in agricultural activities at micro level, at least for
all villages, rural non-farm economy has been the procurement of modern farm inputs.
developed indigenously in situ by making use Nevertheless, urban-linked non-farm
of external opportunities. Urban economy has households do not demonstrate higher
become the main outlet for their labour power. purchase or use of farm machineries in their
Under the existing population density and farming practices. Small farm size does not
purchasing power of the rural people, rural- allow for this as there is a diseconomy of scale
based non-farm activities or establishments can for such efforts. Even in the upland areas where
be a viable endeavour, especially in villages farm size is relatively large, no substantial use
with favourable infrastructure supports and of farm machineries are reported. Moreover,
progressing agricultural economy. Although under the existing labour surplus economy of
agricultural sector has a serious limitation in rural Java and higher seasonal agricultural
absorbing labour of the youth, its role in wage, using external labour is considered to
providing linkages with other economic be the most appropriate solution in farming
activities remains very significant. Thus, under such small size of lands. Households
agricultural sector in the rural diversification with strong basis of urban-linked non-farm
process plays a pivotal role through various economy do not completely abandon their
linkage mechanisms. involvement in farming but tend to leave the
agricultural side of their household economy

84 Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262

 Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

to other persons, especially relatives or Davis, Junior R and Dirk Bezemer. 2003. Key
neighbours through share cropping, Emerging and Conceptual Issues in the
mortgaging or renting. The existing rural Development of the RNFE in Developing
diversification has not been able to drive rural Countries and Transition Economies.
households to leave the farms in all types of Greenwich: World Bank, DFID and Natural
agro-ecological zones in the province. The Resource Institute, University of Greenwich.
remaining strong ties between rural households Nri Report No. 2755.
and their farms in the context of growing non- Eapen, Mridul. 1999. Economic Diversification
farm economy is reflecting risk avoiding in Kerala: a Spatial Analysis. Thiruvanan-
behaviour of subsistent farmers who rely on Thapuram: Centre for Development
their lands for subsistence and treat non-farm Studies.
incomes as a supplement to their household
incomes. For most rural households in the Evans, Hugh Emrys and Peter Ngau, 1991.
province, farming on a small piece of land can “Rural-urban relations, household income
be an insurance against shocks as well as they diversification and agricultural productivity”,
have experienced in the recent crisis. Development and Change, 22(..).
Geertz, Clifford. 1974. Involusi Pertanian:
References Proses Perubahan Ekologi di Indonesia.
Anderson, Dennis and Mark Leiserson. 1980. Terjemahan. Jakarta: Bhratara Karya
“Rural non-farm employment in developing Aksara.
countries”, Economic Development and Grabowski, Richard. 1995. “Commercialization,
Cultural Change, 28(2). non-agricultural production, agricultural
Angeles-Reyez, Edna. 1994. “Non-farm work innovation and economic development”,
in the Philippine rural economy: an Omen Journal of Developing Areas, 30(..).
of change or A change of Omens?” in Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Brown, J. 1989.
Koppel, Bruce; John Hawkins And William “Farm-non-farm linkages in Sub-Saharan
James, (eds.), Development or Africa”, World Development, 17(8): 1173–
Deterioration?: Work in Rural Asia. Boulder 1201.
London: Lyne Riener Publishers. Harriss, John. 1991. “Agricultural/non-
Balassa, Bella. 1991. Economic Policies in the agricultural linkages and the diversification
Pacific Area Developing Countries. London: of rural economic activity: a South Indian
Mac Milan. case study”, in Breman Jan and Sudipto
Basant, Rakesh. 1994. “Economic Mundle (Eds). Rural Transformation in Asia.
diversification in rural areas: review of Oxford: Oxford University Press.
process with Special Reference to Gujarat”, Hart, Gilian. 1986. Power, Labour, and
Economic and Political Weekly, 29(39). Livelihood: Process of Change in Rural
Breman, Jan and Gunawan Wiradi. 2004. Masa Java. Berkeley: University Of California
Cerah dan Masa Suram di Pedesaan Jawa: Press.
Studi Kasus Dinamika Sosial Ekonomi di Hartman, Joerg. 1985. Landlessness and Rural
Dua Desa Menjelang Akhir Abad ke 20. Employment in Indonesia. Rome: FAO.
Translated by Koesalah Soebagyo Toer and Ho, Samuel P. 1979. “Decentralized
Monique Soesman. Jakarta: LP3ES. industrialization and rural development:

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 85

 R. Rijanta

evidence from Taiwan”, Economic Conference of Agricultural Economists.

Development and Cultural Change, (28). Jakarta, 24th August-2nd September.
———————. 1982. “Economic Koppel, Bruce. 1991. “The rural-urban
development and rural industry in South dichotomy re-examined: beyond the ersatz
Korea and Taiwan”, World Development, debate?” in Ginsburg, Norton, Bruce Koppel
10(11). and TG. McGee, The Extended Metropolis:
———————. 2004. “Reorienting rural Settlement Transition in Asia. Honolulu:
livelihoods on Java: the case of Bantul University of Hawaii Press.
revisited”, in R. Rijanta et al. (eds.), Long, Norman. 1984. Family Works in Rural
Proceeding of National Seminar on Rural Societies: Perspectives of Non-Wage
Geography, Liber Amoricum For Prof. Dr. Labour. London and New York: Tavistock
A.J. Suhardjo, M.A. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Publications.
Geografi UGM. Manning, Chris. 1988. “Rural employment
Huisman, Henk and Marieke Kragten. 1994. creation in Java: lessons from green
“Rural diversification under varying revolution and oil boom”, Population and
geographical conditions: an exploratory Development Review, 14(1): 47-80.
survey of four clusters of small scale Maurer, Jean-Luc. 1991. “Beyond the sawah:
industry in Bantul district, Special Region economic diversification in four Bantul
of Yogyakarta”, Indonesian Journal of villages, 1972-1987”, in Alexander, Paul,
Geography, 27(70). Peter Boomgard and Benjamin White,
Huisman, H., and Kragten, M.H. 1997. (eds), In The Shadow of Agriculture: Non-
“Development of the rural non-farm farm Activities in Javanese Economy, Past
economy on Java: a search for roots and and Present. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical
determinative factors”, The Indonesian Institute. pp. 92-112.
Journal of Geography, 29(74). Mellor, John. 1976. The New Economics of
Islam, Rizwanul. 1984. “Non-farm employment Growth: A Strategy for India and Developing
in rural Asia: dynamic growth or World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
proletarianization?”, Journal of ———————. 1985. “Determinants of rural
Contemporary Asia, 14(3). poverty: the dynamics of production,
Jones, Gavin W. 1984. “Links between technology, and price”, in John Mellor and
urbanization and sectoral shifts in Gunvant M. Desai, (eds.), Agricultural
employment in Java”, Bulletin of the Change and Rural Poverty. Baltimore and
Indonesian Economic Studies, 20(3): 120- London: The John Hopkins.
157. Oshima, Harry T. 1984. The Significance of Off-
Kada, Ryohei. 1987. “Changing rural Farm Employment and Incomes in Post-
employment patterns: role of off-farm War East Asian Growth. Manila: ADB.
employment for balanced rural ———————. 1987. Economic Growth in
development”, in Maunder, Alien and Monsoon Asia: A Comparative Study. Tokyo:
Okhawa, Kazishi, (eds). 1982. Growth and Tokyo University Press.
Equity in Agricultural Development.
Proceedings Eighteenth International Poaposangkorn, Nippon. 1994.
“Transformation in the Thai rural labour

86 Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262

 Rural-Urban Linkages, Non-Farm Sectors and Farming Practices in DIY

market”, in Koppel, Bruce, John Hawkins Development and Employment. London:

and William James, (eds.), Development or Ashgate Publishers.
Deterioration?: Work in Rural Asia. Boulder Shand, R. T. (ed). 1986. Off-farm Employment
& London: Lyne Riener Publishers. in the Development of Rural Asia. Canberra:
Ranis, Gustav and Francess Stewart. 1993. ANU.
“Rural non-farm activities in development”, Svensson, Thomy. 1991. “Contractions and
Journal of Development Economics, 40(..). expansions: agrarian change in Java Since
Rijanta, R. and A. J. Suhardjo. 2003. “Defining 1830”, in Morner, Magnus and Thomy
rural diversification in a small-farming Svensson, (eds), The Transformation of
region: the case of Yogyakarta Special Rural Society in the Third World. London
Region”, The Indonesian Journal of and New York: Routledge.
Geography, 35(2). Titus, Milan, Allet van der Wouden and Marieke
Rotge, Vincent L. 1992. “Rural employment Kragten. 1994. “Exploring regional aspects
shift in the context of growing rural-urban of rural development and rural
linkages: trends and prospects for DIY”. diversification in Java”, in Harts Broekhuis
Paper Presented at The International and Otto Verkoren, (eds), No Easy Way Out:
Conference on Geography in the ASEAN Essays on Third World Development in
Region. Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Honor of Jan Hinderink. Utrecht: NGS.
Mada University, Yogyakarta, 31 August–3 UNDP. 2001. Human Development Report:
September. Indonesia. Jakarta: UNDP Indonesia.
———————. 1993. Rural-Urban Linkages Available at WWW.UNDP.ORG. Accessed
in Perspective: Implications for Regional in June 2003.
Development Patterns and Employment White, Benjamin. 1976. “Population, involution
Expansion in Hinterland Communities. and employment”, Development and
Yogyakarta: Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Change. (7).
Mada University.
———————. 1979. “Political aspects of
Rotge, Vincent L. Ida Bagoes Mantra, and poverty, income distribution and their
Rijanta, R. 1995. Rural-Urban Integration measurements: some examples from rural
in Java: Consequences for Regional Java”, Development and Change, 10(..).
Development and Employment. Nagoya:
United Nations Centre for Regional ———————. 1986. Rural Non-Farm
Development. Report Series No. 6. Employment in Java: Recent
Developments, Policy Issues and Research
———————. 2000. Rural-Urban Integration Needs. The Hague: ISS Advisory Service.
in Java: Consequences for Regional

Populasi, 17(1), 2006, ISSN: 0853 - 0262 87