Circular Migration in Indonesia

Circular Migration in Indonesia Author(s): Graeme J. Hugo Reviewed work(s): Source: Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 59-83 Published by: Population Council Stable 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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Circular Migration in Indonesia

Graeme J. Hugo

A substantial and growingbody of fieldevidencepoints not only to the widespreadincidence,but also to the social and economic withinIndoand commuting of circulation, seasonalmigration, significance in large-scaledehowever,goes unrecorded nesia. The bulkof thismobility, adoptthefamiliarcriteria mographicsurveysand censuses,whichroutinely and questionsdesignedto detectpredominantly longerdistance,more-or-less permanent changesin usualplace ofresidence.The low levelsofthelattertype the of movement revealedby thesecensusesand surveysappearto confirm theinhabistereotyping of mostIndonesians(and in particular conventional tantsof Java)as immobilepeasantswho are born,live, and die in thesame beyondtheconfinesof theirnatalvillage.Although house,scarcelytraveling migration detectedbythecensusis theinterprovincial, more-or-less permanent butone subsetoftotalpopulation mobility inIndonesia,in theabsenceofmore micensus-defined national(or even regional)level statistics comprehensive in theliterature.1 have becomesynonymous grationand populationmobility studiescarried of a numberof intensive Thispaperreviewsthefindings population nonpermanent outin severalpartsofIndonesiato establishwhether significance of social, economic,and demographic mobility is a phenomenon thewidein Indonesia.Evidencefroma largenumberofsurveysdemonstrates in and Indonesia of temporary formsofpopulationmobility spreadoccurrence thathavebeenput takes.The majorexplanations themanyformsthatmobility levels of Accelerating forward to explainthismobilityare thensummarized. for implications havebothshort-andlong-term temporary populationmobility of wealthwithinIndonesia.A number achievinga moreequitabledistribution oftheseissuesareraisedintheconcluding sectionofthispaper.Severaldirecin which areidentified mobility tionsin continuing researchintononpermanent of to theunderstanding contribution could make a significant demographers changestakingplace withinIndonesiansociety. fundamental POPULATION

AND

DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW

8, NO.

1 (MARCH

1982)


59

60

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

It is noteasyto distinguish betweenpermanent andnonpermanent populationmobility.Zelinsky(1971: 225-226) definesconventional migration as or semi-permanent "anypermanent as "a changeofresidence"andcirculation greatvarietyofmovements usuallyshortterm,repetitive or cyclicalin nature, butall havingin commonthelackof anydeclaredintention of a permanent or longlastingchangein residence."A further distinction can be madebetween commuting, definedas regulartraveloutsidethevillage(usuallyforworkor education)forfrom6 to 24 hours,andcircularmigration, continuous involving but temporary have absences of greaterthanone day. Some fieldworkers adoptedupperthresholds of continuous absenceof 6 monthsor 12 monthsto distinguish betweencircularand permanent migration. However,theseworkershave also suggestedthatmuchessentially circularmobility was definedas permanent byadoptingsuchabsolutecriteria.Clearly,thedifference lies in the intentions of individualsand thenatureand level of theircommitment to particularplaces, and suchphenomenadefyattempts to establishabsolutetemcan be readily poralcriteria.Despitetheseproblems,thebulkof movements distinguished as permanent or temporary. In Indonesiathecensusand mostconventional large-scalesurveysare designedto systematically excludethebulkof nonpermanent This movement. makesit impossibleto furnish accuratenationalor provincialestimatesof the extentofcommuting andcircularmigration. Some policymakers anddemographersmaketheavailability of suchestimatesthesine qua non of thesignificance of a demographic phenomenon. Clearlyit is important to obtainthese estimates, butthefactthatnoneare availablehereis morea reflection of the inappropriateness of currentdata collectionmethodsto Indonesia'sdemographic,social,andeconomicrealitythanoftheinsignificance ofthephenomenon.Accordingly theaimofthefirst sectionis to demonstrate howthebulkof nonpermanent mobility is missedin conventional data collectionand to draw uponthescattered case studyevidenceto establishthat,although nationalestimatesof thevolumeof nonpermanent mobilityare notavailable,it is a phenomenonof demonstrable significance. Evidence of widespread mobility

nonpermanent

In the1971censussome7.3 millionIndonesians,or 6.4 percentofthepopulation,had lived at some timeoutsidetheirprovinceof presentresidenceand hence were classifiedas "migrants."However,as has been demonstrated elsewhere(Hugo, 1978: 10-12)thecriteria in thatcenused to definemigrants sus excludedmostshort-distance and short-term movers.2The extentto which thetemporal criteriaadoptedin thecensusexcludedpopulationmovements of significance can be gaugedfromfieldsurveyevidence.A studyin 14WestJava villagesthatattempted to detectall permanent and nonpermanent movesassociatedwithworkand formaleducationfoundthatonlyone-third of all such movesmetthecensusmigration timecriteria(Hugo, 1975, 1978). Moreover,


Graeme

61

J. Hugo

in thesurveyvillagesbetween76 and 98 percentof themoverswho metthe movedwithintheprovinceof WestJavaandhencedidnot censustimecriteria as faras thecensuswas concernedbecausetheydid not qualifyas migrants region. defining of a censusmigration crosstheboundary on populationmovementfromvilThe WestJavastudyconcentrated centersof Jakartaand Bandung(see map). lages to the majormetropolitan as havingmawereidentified mobility typesof nonpermanent Severaldistinct Theseincludedcommuting overdistancesof up to 50 km,to jor significance. to engage in or irregularly urban-basedemployment participate in full-time is circularmigrajobs. More distinctive to village-based worksupplementary tion,wherebymoversdo notchangetheirusual place of residencein thevilforperiodslongerthana singleday. lage butareabsentat an urbandestination employment full-time can be associatedwithpermanent Againsuchmovement workin the informal butusuallyinvolvesnonpermanent at the destination, somevillageusuallymaintain sectoroftheurbaneconomy.Circularmigrants withwhichtheymigrateis determined and thefrequency basedemployment, it, theirearningsat the by thedistanceinvolvedand thecosts of traversing andtheavailability ofworkin thehomevillage.Much,butbyno destination, duringtheextendedperiods meansall, circularmobility is seasonal,occurring andharvesting riceduringthewet oflimitedjob opportunity betweenplanting long-distance season and duringthe dryseason. Therewas also significant fromWestJavato theOuterIslandsto workon plantations circularmigration or oil/mineral projects,oftenundercontractand involvingabdevelopment sencesofup to twoyears.Rusli(1978) showsthatthesesametypesof nonperin migration betweenruralareas in manentmovementwere of significance of thefamilieswereat least WestJava.In the14 studyvillagesthree-quarters and on incomesourcesoutsidethevillage,mostlyin Jakarta partlydependent Bandung. have pointedclearlyto theimporstudiesin Jakarta Community-based Jellinek (1978a,b),in in thatcity.In particular migrants tanceofnonpermanent has describedthepondoksystemwhereby in Jakarta, herstudyofpettytraders in circularmigrants (usuallyfromthesame regionof origin)clustertogether a who also by tauke (boss), (pondok)owned tinycrampedrooming-houses providesthemwiththecreditand equipmentneededto set themselvesup as mobiletraders.She pointsout thatthepondokdwellers"were usuallyboth pettytradersand circularmigrants. . . who came intothecityfromthe village

homeas beingin thecountryside merelyto seekworkbutsaw theirpermanent wheretheirwives,childrenand fewpossessionsremained"(Jellinek,1978a: by Jellinek,all butone 1). Of themorethan200 mobiletradersinterviewed of and she suggeststhatif herstudyis representative was a circularmigrant, of thousandsof circular mobiletradersin Jakarta thentheremustbe hundreds migrants engagedin pettytradingalone,in additionto thosewhoworkas day laborers,pedicabdrivers,and thelike. Withrespectto dailycommuting thebulkof evidencerelatesto movementto metropolitan Jakarta fromits immediatehinterland. Koentjaraningrat


WAl

s

wP:\s~~W~t

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

8

k

'4

rA~t~

NO

z

'S

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

O-P

*% l

4

__

l

,2"n < e A4 2~~~~~~~ 0

@

_

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~

I

I

_ k

La.

0

I

2

@4 4 $@ t_sX~~~~~ JL

W,4~~~~~~ le~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I


Graeme

J. Hugo

63

(1974, 1975)forexample,in his studyof villagessouthof Jakarta, recognized movements to thecapital,includingdailycommuwidespreadnonpermanent terswhoareabsentonlyduringthedayor fortwoto fivedaysand "temporary non-seasonal"migrantswho are forcedto leave theirfamiliesfor several ofrailcomweeksor months.As earlyas 1963Masrishowedthesignificance fromBogor, some 60 km to the south.The populationin mutingto Jakarta includesbothcommuters withpermanent Serpong,45 kmwestofJakarta, jobs inJakarta andmanypettytraders whoselllocal products (fruit, vegetables,and handicrafts) at Jakartamarkets(Borkent-Niehof, 1974: 163). The factthat in orderto commute Jakarta manypeoplearemovingintotheareasurrounding to thecityis evidencedin thepreliminary resultsof the 1980 census,which had annualpopshowedthatthethreekabupaten(regencies)adjoiningJakarta ulationgrowthratesbetween1971and 1980of 4.6 percent,4.04 percent,and 3.6 percentcomparedwiththenationalrateof 2.33 percent(BiroPusatStatistik,1981:3). Preliminary resultsofthe1980censusindicatedthatJakarta's population was 6.5 million,representing an annualgrowthrateof 4 percent.This was lowerthanthe4.4 percentduring1961-71and certainly soinewhat lowerthan mostcommentators predicted.Undoubtedly thisgrowthrateseverelyunderestimates thegrowthof Jakarta's functional population:thecensuscriteriareferred toearlierwouldhaveensuredthatmostcircularmigrants andcommuters whospendmuchoftheirlivesandderivemuchoftheirincomeinJakarta were notactuallyenumerated in thatcitybutin theirvillageof origin.A widening circulation radiusaroundJakarta has clearlybrought abouta reduction in shortdistancepermanent moversto thecity,at theveryminimum withintheprovincesof Westand CentralJava,and a phenomenon similarto thatobservedby Hawleyand othersin theWestern world,wherethe"lengthening commuting radiusafforded bytheautomobilehas reducedtheamountof migration necessary,at leastwithinlocal areas" (Boertleinand Long, 1979: 23). It mightbe arguedthatthecircumstances in Jakarta-West obtaining Java werehighlyspecificto thatregionand conduciveto nonpermanent mobilitya huge metropoliswitha large and expandinginformalsector particularly providing manyjob opportunities withflexibletimecommitments, withrelativelyeasyentry andlinkedbya reasonably cheap,efficient transport systemto mostpartsof theprovince.However,a numberof studiesin otherpartsof of mobility in quitedifIndonesiahaveproducedevidenceof similarpatterns ferentcontexts. In the verydenselysettledCentralJava-Yogyakarta region,Mantra's out of two villagesidentified (1981)intensivestudyof movement commuting He explainsthatnonper(muchof itbybicycle)as themajorformofmobility. is of such significance manentmigration amongtheJavanesethattheyhave severaldistinctconceptsof such movement:"nglaju is used forthosewho travelto a place butreturn backto theirhomewithinthesameday,nyinepfor who in another andmondok people stay place forseveraldaysbeforereturning forthosewho lodge in a destination forseveralmonthsor years. community


64

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Merantau refersto those who go to anotherisland fora relativelylong period

buteventually return back to theorigincommunity. The termpindahis used forresidentswho migrateto anotherplace." Mudjiman(1978) has observed circularmigration to thecityof Surakarta and theoperationof a pondok-centeredmigration systemsimilartothatinJakarta. WithintheprovinceofCentral Javathereappearto be twomainsystemsof nonpermanent mobility (Zarkasi, inHugo andMantra,forthcoming). In thewestern partthepatterns are similar to thosedescribedearlierin WestJava,withsubstantial circularmigration to Jakarta fromsuchareasas Kedu, Cilacap,Tegal,and Purwakarta. In theeast, however,the bulk of the movementis commuting and, to a lesserextent, circularmigrationto the major cities such as Semarang,Surakarta,and Yogyakarta. Castles(1967: 53), forexample,notesthatthebulkof thework forceemployedin kretek(hand-madecigarettes) in Kudus and other factories citiesin CentralandEast Javais madeup of womenwholive in thesurroundingruralareasand commutelongdistances(oftenon foot).In East Java,perhaps themostmobilegroupare theMadurese,manyof whomhave moved, eitherpermanently or temporarily, fromtheirsmallislandnortheast of Javato mainlandEast Java,otherpartsof Java,Kalimantan,and Sulawesi. The most mobile of all major ethnicgroupsin Indonesia are the Minangkabau people,whosehomelandis theprovinceof WestSumatra.Althoughthe highlyrestrictive migrantdefinition criteriameantthat many Minangkabau moverswouldnothavebeendesignatedmigrants, the1971censusshowedthat11percent ofall personsbornin WestSumatralivedoutsidethe provinceand a further 12 percentof thoseresidingin theprovincehad previouslylivedin anotherprovince.The centrifugal tendencies withinthissociety areembodiedintheirconceptofmerantau,whichhas beendefinedas "leaving one's culturalterritory whether fora shortor longtime,withthe voluntarily aimof earninga livingor seekingfurther knowledgeor experience,normally withtheintention of returning home" (Naim, 1976: 150). Maude (1980) in a recentpaper has suggested,on the basis of his fieldwork in severalWest Sumatravillages,thattheincidenceof Minangkabau migrants settling permanentlyoutsideof theirhomlandhas increased. In southernSumatracircularmigration is associatedwiththe coffee, withlargenumbers ofseasonalmigrants pepper,andspiceharvests, movingin fromrelatively nearbysettlements or fromtheBantenarea of WestJava.The Banteneseare one of manygroupsin Indonesiawhoengagein seasonalcircularmigration. As Radial (1965: 34) has explained,"The cultureof theBanten peopleis suchthattheyusuallyliketo go merantau,especiallytotheLampung area,to seekothersourcesof incomeor extraincomeduringtheperiodbefore theharvestseason beginsin Lampung.They go merantauafterplantingin Bantenis completeandreturn withtheonsetoftheharvestseason." Thistype of seasonalcircularmigration is widespreadin Java.Franke(1972: 181),for example,describedhow "literallythousandsof landlessfamiliescriss-cross theJavanesecountryside, followingtheharvestfromwestto east, and then forthenextseasonas thepaddystartsto yellowon thefieldsagain." returning


Graeme

65

J. Hugo

In thefarnorthof Sumatra,Abdullah(in Hugo and Mantra,forthcomvolumeoftemporary ing)showsa substantial migration amongtheAcehnese, whoseadat (customary law) dictatesthatmoversshouldnottraveltoo farfrom theirfamilies.Siegel (1969) also showsthatmanyAcehnesemen leave the villageto engagein tradeof one kindor another,or in peppergrowingto the at leastoncea east.Thesemenleavetheirwivesandfamiliesbehindandreturn this year,usuallyaroundtheend of theMuslimfastingmonth.Increasingly circularmigrationappearsto focus on the major city of Medan in North Sumatraprovince. therehas beenlittleresearchintopopulation On theislandofKalimantan thatagainnonpermanent movements aresignificant. mobility, yetitis apparent in isolated the the Studiesamong dayakpeople UpperKapuas area of West Kalimantan3 andtheKenyanpeopleofEastKalimantan (Colfer,1981)revealed noteworthy outmovement, includingthepracticeof seekingtemporary work outsidetheregionintheoilfieldsofBrunei,thepepperplantations ofSarawak, orinthecoastalcitiesofEast andWestKalimantan, Sarawak,andBrunei.The Banjaresepeopleof SouthKalimantanhave a longhistory of movement outsidetheirhomearea. Rambe(1977: 22) has discussedtheBanjareseconceptof has meantto leaveone's natalvillageandcrossthe madam,whichtraditionally sea withtheaimofincreasing one's wealthwithina timeperiodthatis notfixed (butis usuallylongerthanone year).Johansyah (in Hugo and Mantra,forthhas is thatmadam usedmorebroadlyin contemporary coming) indicated South Kalimantan,encompassingboth permanentand nonpermanent mobility. Rambe's(1977) studyof themobilityof thepeople of Alabio, locatedsome 200 kminlandon theBaritoRiver,showsthatmanyresidents engagein circular seasonal migration associatedwithtrading,especiallydownriver to the provincialcapitalof Banjarmasin. The islandof Sulawesiis thehomelandof severalof Indonesia'smost ethnicgroups.Abustam(in Hugo and Mantra,forthcoming) peripatetic has discussedtheprimary heldbythethreelargest conceptsofpopulation mobility ethnicgroupsintheprovinceofSouthSulawesi-the Bugis,Makassarese,and Torajanpeoples. The Bugis are thedominantgroupand have a verydistinct of mobility.For severalcenturies pattern theyhave been seafarers,"roaming thearchipelagoin searchof tradein accordancewiththedirection of thepreto Sulawesionlyfora fewmonthsofeach yearto vailingmonsoon,returning refitand repairtheirpraus (sailingboats)" (Lineton,1975: 174). In theeighteenthcentury coloniesin Kalimantan,SoutheastSultheybeganestablishing in Irian(New Guinea), and morerecently awesi,Maluku,East Nustenggara, Jambi(easternSumatra),and evenin Java(especiallyJakarta).Whilethishas involvedmore-or-less permanent ofBugissettlers, thecolonieshave migration also servedas basesfromwhichtoengageincircularmigration (Lineton,1975; Amiroelahet al., 1976; Suhartoko,1975). There is also substantialBugis movement withinSouthSulawesi, includingseasonal circularmigration betweenruralareas and large-scalecircularmigration betweenvillagesand the movement provincial capitalcityof UjungPandang.Muchof thisrural-urban


66

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

andinvolvestheMakassareseandTorajansas well. also has a seasonalrhythm of Makassaresefromtheirvillages in the poorest The seasonal migrations sectoractivitiesas southern partof theprovinceto engagein such informal pedicabdrivingand small-scalesellinghave been studiedin detailby Forbes on bicycles leave theirvillagesas earlyas midnight (1978). Peasantsregularly which produceorhandicrafts, heightswithagricultural piledtogravity-defying homein thelateafterduringthedaybeforereturning theysell in citymarkets noon or evening.The Torajanpeople fromthe denselypopulatednorthern mobile.Whiletheyincreasingly travelto Kaliare also extremely mountains is withintheprovince. andIrian,thebulkoftheirmovement mantan,Jakarta, substantial; muchof it is to Ujung Pandangis particularly Theirmigration circularand involvesmoversengagingin informalsectoractivities.Several volumeof thismovementand its important studiestestify to the significant economicandsocial impactsuponthevillagesof origin(Abustam,1975;Suratha,1977; Mangunrai,1979; and Abustam,in Hugo and Mantra,forthcoming). In easternIndonesia,Lucardie(1979, 1981)has describeda widevariety in the area of Halmaheraand adjacentislands of nonpermanent migrations (especiallyMakian) in the provinceof Maluku. These rangefrommobility migrato short-term and otherfoodcultivation associatedwithsago gathering tionassociatedwithwage labor.In IrianJaya,Rumbiak(1978) foundthatthe was of theGenyempeopleto theprovincialcapitalcityof Jayapura migration of circulapatterns essentially circular.Muchof Irianhas longhad significant tionassociatedwithshifting cultivation, trade,andexchangeof suchgoodsas to urbanareas,especially knivesandbuildingmaterials.However,commuting towns and to areas of raw material and circularmigration bothto Jayapura, areofgrowingimportance, especiallywiththespreadoftheprovexploitation of publicminibuses. and proliferation ince'sroad network Littleis knownaboutpopulationmobilityin East and WestNusatengIt ofverycomplexandsignificant patterns. thereareindications gara,although theperiodsof famineand wouldbe interesting to know,forexample,whether foodshortagethatfrequently occurin partsof thoseprovincesinducenonpermanentmigrations. the concerning The aim of thissectionhas beento reviewtheliterature has been withinIndonesia.Attention incidenceof nonpermanent migration to seekor engagein work,and a wide focusedonlyon populationmovements circularmovesto visitrelatives,seek rangeof somewhatcasual, adventitious go shopping,and the like have been ignored.This has been entertainment, ofnonpermanent mobility donedeliberately to establishthedirectsignificance foreconomicdevelopment. The patterns of mobilitysummarizedherehave resultedin considerablephysicalseparationbetweenplace of residenceand contextshave shown place of workformanyIndonesians.Studiesin Western how the availabilityof comparatively systems transport cheap and efficient overrelatively shortdistances havepermitted to replacemigration commuting


Graeme

J. Hugo

67

has been conof commuting (Holmes,1965;Lewan, 1969). The phenomenon thatjourney-to-work sideredto be of such economicand social significance counquestionsare now an acceptedpartof censusesin mostEuro-American separationof place of usual resitries(Termote,1975). However,substantial regardedas peculiarto dence and place of workhas been conventionally whilein tradidevelopedsocietieswiththeirmodernmeansof transportation, tionalsocietydwellingsand places of workwerein almostidenticallocations (Hagerstrand, 1962: 61). has become of Nevertheless, we have seen not onlythatcommuting of nonin thedevelopingworldbutthata proliferation immensesignificance has madepossiblea greater physicalseparation permanent mobility strategies Decommuting. ofdwellingand workplacethanis possiblewithconventional technology, timeandtravelcostsstill spitetherapidprogress madeintransport can takeplace. Howseverelylimitthedistanceoverwhichmasscommuting world,thereis growing ever,in Indonesia,as in muchof the non-Western evidenceof peoplelivingbeyond(and oftena greatdistancebeyond)theconby enjoyedby commuters ventional commuting limit,yetgainingthebenefits betweentheirhome area and theirplace of engagingin circularmigration work. The studiesreviewedabovehave shownthatmanyIndonesiansworkin place. Quite oneplacebutconsume,spend,andinvesttheirearningsin another of suchpatterns of mobilityforsocial apartfromtheimportant implications the mustbe takenintoaccountinplanning change,thissignificant phenomenon of scarcedevelopment tell resources.Yetwhatcan demographers investment economicandsocialplannersaboutmobility inIndonesiathatwillhelpthemin in Incensusand large-scalesurveysundertaken theirtask?The conventional long-distance, concerning donesiaallow us to makesome helpfulstatements more-or-less However,thesesourcesallowus verylittle permanent migration. thescale, representative dataconcerning scopeto providedetailed,nationally mobility underdiscussion incidence,causes, and impactof thenonpermanent here.Seriousconsideration mustbe givento includingcertaintypesofnonperis sought manentmobility amongthevariablesaboutwhichdirectinformation in nationalsurveysand censusesin Indonesia. Explaining

nonpermanent

migration

incidence The studiesreviewedin theprevioussectionindicatethewidespread of nonpermanent populationmobilityin Indonesia.Moreover,thesestudies thatthe measureevidenceto rejectthe argument provideamplefield-based in migration mentand close studyof thismobilityshouldnot be a priority entailonlypermaresearch becausesocial changeand economicdevelopment of population,especiallyfromruralto urbanareas. The nentredistribution mobility, especiallybetween Indonesianevidencesuggeststhatnonpermanent notonlyfor social and economicimplications villageand city,has significant Given themigrants involvedbutalso fortheirplacesof originanddestination.


Circular

68

Migration

in Indonesia

of nonpermanent migration, whatare theforcescausingsuch theimportance movement? In thissectionseveralofthetheoriesadvancedtoexplaintheaccelin Indonesiaare and circularmigration erationin theincidenceof commuting discussed. Sociocultural

explanations

migration has become instituSome writershave suggestedthattemporary tionalizedwithinsomeethnicgroupsin Indonesia,so thatitbecomesthenorm forparticular peoplewithinthatgroupto spendpartoftheirlivesoutsidetheir has beeninvokedespeciallyinthecase ofthe villageofbirth.Thisexplanation Minangkabaupeople of WestSumatra.Naim (1974), who highlyperipatetic Indonesia,suggeststhat throughout has studiedMinangkabaucommunities withinthesociety,andled to systemhas mademalesmarginal theirmatrilineal inmerantaubecomingthenormforyoungmen-with social disapprobation Abdullah to thispattern (Hadi, 1981).Similarly, currediftheydo notconform kinmerantau as an effectof thematrilineal (1971:6) explainsMinangkabau shipsystem:"The customofgoingto therantau can be regardedas an instituof unmarried tionaloutletforthefrustrations youngmenwho lack individual andrightsin theirown society.To a marriedman,goingto the responsibility expectations releasefromtwofamilies'conflicting rantau meansa temporary family."Maude presseduponhimas a husbandanda memberofthematernal they (1979) and Naim (1974: 347) bothfoundthatthe majorityof migrants with reasons for moving, but they (together interviewedgave economic of thefactthatmerantauhas become Murad,1980:40) stressthesignificance amongsome Minangkabaupeople. institutionalized Sumatra,women In thematrilocalsystemof theAcehneseof northern ricelandat marriage,whereasmenare usually receivehousesand sometimes without resourcesinthevillageuntiltheirparentsdie (Siegel, 1969:145). This foryoungmen to "go to the peripheral positionis a strongencouragement East" (dja' utimo)or on therantau (leave one's home area), and manyengage

incircularmigration to seekworkinthepepper-growing areasofthemajorcity factorsclearlyare ofMedanor setoffto tradein theEast. Whilesociocultural shouldnotbe influential here,Siegel (1969: 54) warnsthattherantau pattern man a if a make independent and that could satisfactory overlyromanticized do not incomehe wouldstayathome.Hence,theAcehnesecircularmigrations thataresometimes ascribed appeartohavethe"riteofpassage" characteristics to Minangkabaumigration and verydefinitely to some of theDayak circular in Kalimantan4 movement (Colfer,1981:13). Rumbiak(1978), in his studyof fromGenyemto thecityofJayapura, explainsthatseekingsufficient migration was a majorcause of youngmenleaving wealthto meetbride-price payments In somecases outmigration becomesa virtualnecessity thevillagetemporarily. forcertainvillagers,especiallyyoungmen. formofmobility, whether nonperofa particular The institutionalization manentor permanent, operatesnotonlyon thescale of theethnicgroupbut 1964; Hugo, also on a regionaland local scale (Lucardie,1981;Vredenbregt,


Graeme

J. Hugo

69

1980). Particular ethnicgroupsin Indonesiahave longbeen characterized by whatis referred to in the 1930 census (Volkstelling, 1933-1936) as "wanderlust."It is commonto findneighboring villages,similarin theireconomic andsocial conditions, one evidencingsubstantial circulation andtheothervirto and fromthevillage. tuallyno mobility The institutionalization of mobilitywithina particular groupoftenasin thatoutmigration sumesan elementof circularity, and return are migration and institutionalization equallyencouraged.But tradition can also encourage stability and lack of mobility.In thislatterrespectit is interesting to notethe argument of Mantra(1981)thattheverystrongattachment of theJavaneseto theirnatalvillagemakespermanent displacement anathemato them,even in thefaceofbleakeconomiccircumstances. On theotherhand,theyhavereadily adoptedcommuting andothernonpermanent formsofmobility whenthenewly developedroad transportation systemshave made thempossible. Lucardie (1981)laysgreatstressupontheemotionalattachment oftheMakianesetotheir homevillage,a feelingthatencouragescircularity ratherthanpermanence in theirmobility. As withmostpopulation mobility, nonpermanent migration in Indonesia takesplace inresponseto a complexsetofinteracting of forces,theseparation whichmustinevitably be somewhatartificial. One cannotsay thatthenonpermanentmobility of particular groupsin Indonesiais a responseto exclusively sociocultural of one typeor another,since manyotherforcesare influences factorsbriefly clearlyat work.However,someofthesociocultural mentioned hereare oftenoverlooked.Some mayarguethatsocietalmobilitynormsare merelya reflection of, and determined by, economicnecessityand political of kind or impositions one another.Yetsuch arguments failto explaininterregionaland intergroup variationsin typesand levelsof mobilitywhereeconomicand politicalconditionsappearto be relativelyhomogenous(Hugo, 1980). Sociocultural elementsappearfromthiswriter'svillage-levelfieldwork experiencein Indonesiato be too frequently overlookedas an oftenimportant elementinfluencing population mobility patterns. Equally,however,thatexperiencehas pointedto theoverwhelming dominance ofeconomicconsiderations notonlyin shapingthevolumeand direction of mobility butalso in determinthatmovement ingwhether is permanent or temporary. In his pioneeringworkon circularmigration to towns,Elkan (1959, 1967)has suggestedthatthepattern of migration betweenvillageand cityin EastAfricais bestexplainedin termsofeconomicforces,rather thanby social andculturalfactors.Wenowdiscussseveraloftheeconomic-based arguments to explainnonpermanent in Indonesia. putforward populationmobility Economic

explanations

Maximizing familyincomeand utility The basic argument fromconsumption herewas putforward by Elkan(1959, 1967)in his East Africanstudyand by Hugo (1975,1978)forWestJava.One must,however,stressa basic difference betweenthefindings of theAfricanstudiesand thosein muchof Indonesia,


70

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

especiallyJava.It is clearthatinruralIndonesia,landshortage andpressureon agricultural resourcesaremuchgreater thaninmostofAfrica.In Javalessthan halftheruralpopulation ownsorhasdirectaccessto sufficient land agricultural to obtainsubsistence: mostofthenonpermanent migrant householdscouldnot earnsufficient incomesin eitherthecityor thevillageto supportthemselves andtheirdependents. or commuting Thus,circularmigration providesa means forfamiliesto maximizetheirincomesby encouraging some membersof the householdto workin thevillageat timesof peak labordemandand to seek workin the cityor elsewhereat slowertimeswhile othermembersof the householdremainto cope withlimitedvillage-basedlabordemands.In addition,by leavingdependents in thevillagehome,themigrants (mostlymen) in thecityor otherdestination beeffectively reducethecostsof subsistence cause thesolitarymovercan putup withcheaperand less comfortable conditionsthanhis familywould requireand thuscut personalcosts to a bare minimum. Thus,by eamingin thecitybutspendingin thevillagethemigrant maximizestheutilitygainedfromconsumption. The argument formaximizing familyincomeandutility fromconsumptionappearsto gainconsiderablesupportfromseveralof thefieldwork-based studiesreviewedearlier.It is particularly appropriate in Java,whereland is veryscarce,thedemandsforlaborin thevillageare highlyseasonal,and a complexinformal sectorin thecitiesallowsrelatively easy access to employment(albeitforverylow incomeand oftenforgreatinvestment of timeand effort), alongwiththeflexibletimecommitments demandedbynonpermanent migrants.5 Elementsof thisargument have been putto thepresentwriterby in severalpartsof Indonesiaand the Philippines. migrants duringfieldwork One is constantly ofthehard-headed reminded ofcircular economicrationality in situationswhereincome-earning mobilitystrategies opportunities are exlimitedin bothruraland urbansectors.Therecan be no doubtthatin tremely manyregionstraditionally for strongfamilyandvillagetiesandthepreference a rural-based wayof lifeexerta strongattraction on themigrant, butit is rare thatthechoiceofnonpermanent overpermanent is an economically migration irrational responseto thesocial pull of thehomeplace. A secondaspectofElkan'seconomicexRiskaversionor minimization is thatmoversconsidered planationofcircularmigration to urbanemployment offerlittlesecurity in old age or in timesofdifficulty so thatitwas imperative to retaincontactswithruralsociety.The WestJavastudyalso foundthisto be an important consideration amongmovers.A circulationstrategy keeps the mover'soptionsinthevillagecompletely openso thattheriskofnotbeingable to eam subsistence is reducedby spreading itbetweenvillageandcityincome opportunities. Moreover,severalvillage-basedsupportsystemscan be mobilized in timesof economicor emotionalneed-namely,thenuclearand wider ofgotongroyong(mutualself-help)amongthewidervilfamily,thetradition lage community, and the traditionally significant bapaklanakbuah (patron/ is notavailablein thecity,so that client)relations.In mostcases, suchsupport


Graeme

J. Hugo

71

ifa migrant maintains a stakein his villagehe does notcut himselfofffrom whatis oftentheonlyavailablesupportin timesof direneed. Again the risk aversionarguments have considerableapplicability in Java.ManyofJava'sruraldwellersareon theveryknifeedgeofexistenceand simplydo nothavesufficient surplusto allowthemtotaketherisksthatpermanentmigration involves. A mobilitystrategy thatminimizessuchrisks often obviouslyhas moreappeal undersuchcircumstances. Mobilityresulting fromtheunevenimpactof capitalismThe argument hereis foundedin politicaleconomybut is not a polaroppositeto thetwo largelyeconomicexplanations advancedabove, althoughit is sometimes presees populationmobility as a response sentedas such.Basically,thisargument of to broadersociostructural changesassociatedwiththeunevenpenetration capitalism,which has createdsubstantialsectoral,class, and spatial inein qualities.In a seminalworkAmin(1974) has arguedthatlabormigration Africacan be bestunderstood intermsoftheeffects ofunevencapitalist expansion upon thosesocieties.It has been arguedthatcontemporary population in Indonesiacannotbe explainedwithoutreference to theformative mobility of colonialismon thecountry's influence political,economic,and social systems(Hugo 1975,Ch. 2; 1980;forthcoming). The argument is thatthefundamentally exploitative colonialsystemdesignedto controlthelocal population and expeditethe extraction of raw materialsin the mostcost-efficient way shapedthe patternof mobilityin verydistinctive ways thathave yetto be altered.The concentration in areasofexploitative ofinvestment activity (plantations,mines,ports,garrisons)and its diversionfromthe subsistenceand areaswherethebulkof thepopulationlived;the semisubsistence agricultural the development removalof surplusto the mothercountry,stifling of local industrialization and a fullydevelopedurbanhierarchy; and thecreationof a dependent economy,centralizedpoliticalsystem,and distinctive class stratification-allhave had a formative and enduringinfluenceon mobilitypatterns. Forbes(1980) has shownthatAmin'stheorycan be usefulin explaining themovement of a smallgroupof pettycommodity circulation by examining producers in UjungPandang,SouthSulawesi.He arguesthatthereis an importanttheoretical distinction betweenmigration and circulationand concludes (Forbes, 1980: 21) thatcirculationis" . . . a resultof theincompletepenetra-

tionofcapital,andalso . . . [helps]to slowtherateofchangeinIndonesiaby Ifthe helpingtopreserve pettycommodity andpeasantsubsistence production. wagelaboursectorshouldexpand,orifagriculture shouldbecomeincreasingly capitalized,thencirculation maywell givewayto anotherformof mobility." The latterpointconcerning increasedcapitalization of agriculture has some in contemporary immediacy Indonesiabecause it is clearthatmanyof Indonesia's,and especiallyJava's,ruralareashavein thelastdecadeor so experienced the impactof major"modernizing"and commercializing changesin and practice(White,1979). The fullimpactof these agricultural technology


72

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

changeson populationmobilityis notyetapparent.However,it is clearthat manyof thesechangeshave had labor-displacing effectswithinagriculture (Hugo, 1978) and couldpotentially have theeffectof increasing outmigration fromthoseareas. Whether suchmovement is to be permanent, nonpermanent, orbothis notclearbutthereis littleevidenceof an impending greatexpansion inurbanwagelaborthatwouldabsorblargenumbers ofpermanent outmigrants displacedfromagricultural areas. Forbes'sargument, then,is thatnonpermanent migration is boththeresultandthecause of inequalities in Indonesiansociety.It playsa conservative roleinpreventing thefullproletarianization ofthepopulation.Thissameargumentwas advancedover60 yearsearlierby Ranneft(1916), who recognized threephasesin thedevelopment of Indonesia'seconomy,thelastbeinga periodof "capitalistic production" datingfromaround1860. Ranneftpointsout thedominanceof nonpermanent formsof mobilityduringthisphase in responseto thedistinctively different (fromEurope)natureof capitalistpenetrationexternally imposeduponthepopulationof Java.He explicitlystatesthat thiscircularmigration delaystheformation of a proletariat; and insteadofthe emergenceof two social groups-an urban-based non-landowning proletariat anda smallfarming class-there is an undifferentiated groupinvolvingthemselvesin boththecapitalistand peasantmodesof production. The theoretical explanation briefly outlinedin thissectionis sometimes seen as beingcompetitive withtheeconomicexplanationsdiscussedearlier, butthepresentwritersees themmoreas complementary. The firsttwo economicexplanations are based largelyon a micro-level approachand ariseout of intensivefieldwork and close studyof individuals,households,and small communities. The unevendevelopment cannot theorysuggeststhatmigration be explainedwithout understanding themacro-structural forcesin societyand thecontextual elementsshapingthepattern of mobility.Each of theexplanationsthrowssomelighton thecausesofmobility. Hencean important priority wouldbe to exploreand establishlinkagesbetweentheforcesthatoperateat theindividual levelandinfluence willmove whether householdsorindividuals or stayand thebroaderstructural forcesthatconstrain theoptionsavailableto themandultimately ofmovement. determine theoverallpattern Fieldworkand thestudiesreviewedheredo indicatethatthereare, as Gerold-Scheepers and VanBinsbergen (1978: 28) suggest,internal factorsin additionto theexternal forcesof capitalistpenetration thatat leastpartially explainwhysome groups orsomeoftheirmembers migrate morethanothers.It is atthemicrolevelthat thetwoapproachescan come together. We knowlittleaboutthemicro-structuralsettingin whichpopulationmovement occursor failsto occur.How do theexternal forcesofcolonialpenetration andtheresultant unevenanddistinctivepatternof capitalistpenetration manifestthemselvesat the level of the village,family,or individualand impelmigration of a particular typeor enIn whatwaysare theseforcesperceived?How do theyconcouragestability? straintherangeof mobility/stability choicesopen to particular groupswithin to thevillage?These important be questionshave yet approachedin mobility researchin Indonesia.


Graeme

73

J. Hugo

Transport development and temporary populationmobilityOne of the mostfundamental distinctions betweennonpermanent andpermanent formsof population mobility is therelativesignificance ofthejourneybetweenplace of originand destination.In mostpermanent and semipermanent migrations, travelcosts,timetaken,and distancetraversed betweenoriginanddestination a minorelementin a mover'soverallcalculusin deciding generally constitute whether or notto migrateand where.Severalwriters have pointedto therelativeunimportance of travelcostsin migration (e.g., Herrick,1965) andto the factthatthecostsof thejourneyusuallyconstitute a one-timeoutlayand are nota continuing andsignificant elementinthemover'soverallbudget.This,of course,is notthecase withtemporary formsof populationmobility whenthe moveris repeatedly circulating betweenoriginand destination. The journey itselfclearlyoccupiesa muchmorecentralpositionamongtheelementsinfluencingmoversand nonmovers, and transport costsare a constantand significantitemin themover'sbudget.Clearlya prerequisite forlongand medium distancemass commuting and circularmigration of the typesthatoccur in Indonesiais a widespread,cheap,and efficient transportation network. The lastdecadehas produceda veritable in theavailability revolution of overmostof ruralIndonesia(Hugo, 1981b).Therecan be no publictransport doubtthatthe extensionof roads and the proliferation of vehiclesof many types,especiallybuses and minibuses,intohitherto isolatedruralareas have led to greatlyincreasedspatialmobilityfora wide spectrum of Indonesia's ruraldwellers.The precisenatureof the relationship betweenthis striking changein transport andmigration availability has beenlittleinvestigated; however,it is clearthatthetransport has greatly revolution facilitatedtheconcurrentupswingin circularmigration and commuting (Hugo 1975, 1978, 1981b; Naim,1971;Mantra,1981).Muchearlier,Ranneft(1916:61) similarly showed thatinnovation in transport in Indonesiawas influential in producing changes in thetypesand levels of populationmobility. In thissectionwe have summarized some of themajorarguments put forward to explainnonpermanent in Indonesia.We nowhave a submigration stantialbodyof empiricalknowledgeconcerning thecauses of nonpermanent As has been suggestedin thediscussion,thereis now a need for migration. researchdirectednotonlytowardcloserinvestigation oftheforcesinfluencing nonpernmanent mobility,but also towardthe integrating of whatwe already knowconcerning thecauses of thismobility intoa coherent theoretical framework. Implications of nonpermanent

migration

A fewofthemoreimportant theoretical andpolicyimplications arisingoutof thepreviousdiscussionwillbe briefly mentioned. One important initialconsiderationis whether thepresenthighlevelof nonpermanent is simplya mobility transitional phasethatwill ultimately be replacedby permanent relocationof manymoversto urbanareasas social changeand economicdevelopment pro-


74

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ceed. The generalformulations of Skeldon(1977) and Nelson (1978), based predominantly on LatinAmericanexperience,would suggestthatthisis the case, as does someoftheAfricanliterature (VanBinsbergen andMeilink1978: 11). The empiricalevidencefromIndonesia,however,is somewhatmixedin thisrespect.Maude(1980) suggeststhatMinangkabau outmigration fromWest Sumatrais becomingmorepermanent overtime,andRambe's(1977) studyin SouthKalimantan pointsto a transition fromnonpermanent to permanent outmovement amongthe Banjareseof Alabio. On theotherhand,manyof the otherstudies,especiallythosebased in Java,foundthatthegreatmajority of nonpermanent migrants have no intention of shifting permanently to theirurban destinations. It wouldbe premature to inferfromthisthattheirmigration willremaincircular,formostmovershave onlybeen engagedin circularmigrationfora fewyears.At presentit seemsthat,formanyIndonesiannonpermanent movers,theirmobility is notperceivedas a preliminary stagebeforean ultimate ofthemselves permanent relocation andtheirfamilies.Theevidenceis thatcommuting andcircularmigration aremorethansimplya meansto testthe destination environment beforesettling there.Manytemporary moversinIndonesiaexhibita strongandapparently to bilocality, commitment long-term opting forthe combinationof activitiesin both ruraland urbanareas thata nonpermanent migration strategy allows them. Another important consideration is theimplications ofincreasednonpermanentmigration forbroadersocial and economicchangein Indonesia.Much ofthemigration andnonpermanent) (bothpermanent can be seenas a response to the substantialspatial,sectoral,and class inequalitieswithinIndonesia. Therehas beena longhistory ofconcentration ofpublicandprivateinvestment and resourcedevelopment activity-andhenceexpansionin employment opportunities-in particular localities(especiallyJakarta, a fewotherurbancenters,and regionsof resourceextraction such as plantations and timber,oil, coal, and mineralareas). Muchof thenonpermanent migration describedearlierflowsfromareasin whichtherehas beenverylittleinvestment and developmenttowardregionsthathave receivedinvestment faroutof proportion to theirshareofthenationalpopulation.Whileitis clearthatthesespatialsocioeconomicinequalities area majorcausalfactorin nonpermanent the migration, criticalquestionremainswhether thatmobilityin turnhas an effecton those it tendsto ameliorateor exacerbatethem. inequalitiesand, if so, whether Accordingto one mainline of argument, thetransfer of incomefrom urbanto ruralareas, whichhave been starvedof investment, is leadingto a reductionin social and economic disparities:" . . .since netruralemigrationis

concentrated on particular areas,groupsandseasons,a smallnationalflowcan redistribute resourcesamongand withinruralcommunities and considerably betweenruraland urbanareas. Most neoclassicaleconomistswould expect to reducebothinefficiency voluntary populationmovements and inequality" (Lipton,1980:1). IndeedmostoftheIndonesianstudiesreviewedin thispaper referto a substantial backflowof moneyand goods to theplace of originas a resultof nonpermanent In theWestJavastudy,forexample(Hugo, migration. 1975, 1978), all temporary moversremitted moneyto theirfamiliesand 81


Graeme

J. Hugo

75

percentbrought back goods. Amongcommuter households,an averageof 60 percent of theirincomewas derivedfromremittances, whilecircularmigrants' remittances accountedfornearlyhalftheirhouseholds'totalincomeon average. Nevertheless, muchoftherecentliterature (Connell,1980;Lipton,1980) has suggestedthattheimpactof moneyflowsto thevillageof originis small and in manycases even negativewhenconsideredin netterms."The sparse evidencesuggeststhatnet remittances are quite smallrelativeto villageincome, are concentrated on richervillagehouseholdsunlikelyto sufferfrom capitalconstraints, and tendto be littleused to financeinvestment, exceptin house-building. . ." (Lipton, 1980: 3). It is noticeable, however, in Lipton's

(1980) reviewof theremittance literature thatstrongemphasisis placed on monetary flowsgenerated by more-or-less permanent migrants and verylongtermmigrants. Yet,as Fan and Stretton (1980:23) suggest,"Fromthepointof viewof theruralsector,remittances an important benefit of circular represent migration. Whilepermanent migrants mayalso sendfundsto theirvillage,the amountsare unlikelyto be as largeor as regular."The WestJavastudycertainlysupports thecontention thatthenetremittance ofnonpermanent migrants weresubstantially greaterand moresignificant thanthoseof permanent migrants.Moreover,the studymakesclear that,undercurrent conditions,the flowof remittances is absolutelycriticalto the well-beingof manyvillage households.Fromtheperspective ofruraldevelopment, however,it shouldbe mentioned thatthebulkoftheseremittances areusedtopurchasethemundane necessitiesof life(food,clothing,etc.); and whilethereis someinvestment in housingandland,amountsdirected towardemployment-generating enterprises are relatively small. A clearunderstanding of theredistributive impactof nonpermanent migrationin Indonesiamustawaitmoredetailedstudiesof remittances and the effectof migration on thevillage.Nevertheless, existingstudiesin Javaand manypartsof the OuterIslands indicatethatwhenbothnonpermanent and permanent are considered,thenetflowof remittances migrants tendsto be in favorof thevillage,thattheseasonalor periodicloss oflaborfromthevillage rarelyresultsin anyloss of overallproductivity (e.g., Colfer,1981),and that manyindividualsand village communities would sufferdire consequences shouldtheiraccess to income-earning in citiesand othercenters opportunities of investment be curtailedin anyway. Proponents oftheargument theredistributive effects ofpopusupporting lationmobilityalso suggestthatthemoversthemselveswill be changedby theirexperiences at theirdestination, especiallyifit is an urbanarea, andthat thiswill lead themto be innovators and developmental leaderswhentheyreturnto thevillage.Againthereis littleevidencefromIndonesiato supporta are generallyhighly judgmenteitherway. It is clear thatreturning migrants in thevillagebecauseoftheirgreater respected experienceandthatsomehave takenleadingrolesin theirvillages;yetthereis littleevidenceto suggestthat theyhave challengedthetraditional of thevillage. structure authority The secondmainline of argument therelationship between regarding


76

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

in Indonesiais thatthisformof migration and development nonpermanent of wideinequalitiesand, pattern mobility acts,at best,to preservethecurrent suggeststhatthecirat worst,to exacerbatethoseinequalities.Thisargument of ofspatialconcentration pattern theexisting cularmobility oflaborreinforces can now investment in a fewprivilegedareas.The factthatplaceslikeJakarta having drawlaborfroma muchwiderareathanhaseverbeenpossible,without housing, to provideall of the workersand theirfamilieswithpermanent the and so on, mayin factbe encouraging utilities, schooling,healthfacilities, areas and the in thosecenters.The destination concentration of investment First,the localclasseswithpoliticalandeconomicpowergaina doublebenefit. at thatwages and conditionscan be maintained supplyof laboris so plentiful low levels; and thereis some evidence(e.g., Breman,1979) to suggestthat a moredocileworkforce. areaconstitute drawnfroma distant circular migrants etc.) to theprovi(via taxation, Second,theseclassesdo nothavetocontribute housing,etc.) forthefamiliesof the circular sion of overheads(permanent shouldbecome migrants who remainat home.Moreover,ifcircularmigrants falluponbad times,theyareableto seekouttheirvillage-based ill orotherwise elites socialandwelfareservices.In all oftheserespects,then,theurban-based whilethemoversand theirfamiliesincurcosts. derivebenefits In short,thisargument mobilityis not a suggeststhatnonpermanent of satisfactory long-termsolutionto village povertyand maldistribution mayact in a similarwayto theagriwealth.In villageJava,circularmobility mechanisms describedby Geertz(1963) as anothermeans culturalinvolution toearnjustenoughto survive whereby thepoorareprovidedwithopportunities forverticalmobility levelbutare givenlittleopportunity at a baresubsistence is reallyonly mobility Thus,nonpermanent to improvetheirlivingconditions. Its a stop-gapmeasurethatwill maintaincurrent inequalities. verysuccessin in the longer reliefmay, in fact,be counterproductive providingtemporary thatwill ultimately fromthe only strategy termbecause it divertsattention of investment decentralization assistthepoor in ruralareas-a fundamental towardrural and capitalawayfromcitiesand areasof resourceconcentration sector. areasand, in particular, thepeasantagricultural Currentknowledgeof nonpermanent migrationin Indonesialends at outlinedabove. On theonehand, tobothlinesofargument leastpartialsupport certaineconomicbenefits perspective, thereis no doubtthatfroma short-term movers,theirfamilies,andto someextenttheir usuallyaccruetotheindividual mostlikelyalso migration villagesoforigin.On theotherhand,nonpermanent preservesand perhapsexacerbatesexistinginequalities,and the widespread fromthelong-term of thismovement occurrence mayin factdivertattention needfora moreequitableinvestment of totalresourcesinruralareasandpeasant agriculture. forpolicy.The imhave significant implications Bothmajorarguments shouldencouragenonperis thatpolicymakers plicationof thefirstargument a net manentmobility effects-namely, becauseof itspositivedevelopmental of ruralflowof wealthand perhapsideas fromcityto villageand a reduction urbaninequalities.


Graeme

J. Hugo

77

The secondargument has quitedifferent policyimplications. If nonpermanentmigration in factconsolidatesinequalitiesand prevents theformation of a significant urban-based proletariat, it wouldappearpreferable to encourage permanent migrationand discouragenonpermanent migration.Lipton (1980: 3) has summedup the positionsuccinctly:"Even if evidenceon the impactofemigration on ruralareasleads to gloomyconclusions,thisdoes not mean that . . . migrationshould be impeded. No; the implicationsare rather

that,sincedevelopment almostcertainly impliessteadylabourtransfers outof . . . governments agriculture shouldstopallocatinginvestment and incentives in waysthatencourageexcessive,premature and, therefore, disappointing labourtransfer. This meanscorrecting investment and incentivebiases against theruralsector." It is clear thatwe do not yetknowenoughabouthow nonpermanent migration is relatedto thewidersocial and economiccontextin whichit is in Indonesiaand itsimpacton incomedistribution occurring (bothspatialand vertical).In theabsenceof suchknowledgeit would be premature to make definitive pronouncements on whatpolicyinitiatives, ifany,shouldbe taken. In a broaderpolicycontext,however,it is absolutelycriticalthatcognizancebe takenof thescale, causes,and impactofnonpermanent migration. Regionaldevelopment plannerstendto takeaccountof permanent migration; but,as Fan and Stretton (1980: 21) havepointedout,ifa pattern ofnonpermanentmigration is of significance in a region"thentheconsequencesofmigratoryflowsmaybe quitedifferent fromthosegenerally perceivedbyresearchers andpolicymakerswhotendto treatall migration as permanent." One importantconsequenceis theinterdependence betweendifferent sectors(especially theurbanand ruralsectors)createdby nonpermanent migration. Policiesand programsinitiatedin theurbansectorwill oftenhave unanticipated spin-off effectsin theruralsectorthatare transmitted themigrants through (e.g., restrictions on job opportunities in the city,as has open to circularmigrants occurredin Jakarta).Similarly,theimpactof somepoliciesandprograms initiatedin ruralareasmaybe feltin cities. It is apparentthatthereare severalmajorgaps in our knowledgeand in Indonesia-its scale, causes, conof nonpermanent understanding mobility in the broadersocial and economiccontextof sequences,and implications nationaland regionaldevelopment and change. Equally, it is apparentthat can play a majorrole in increasingour understanding. One of demographers thepioneersof thestudyof circulation, Mitchell(1978: 6-7) has statedsentimentsechoedby manywho have followedhimin thestudyof thephenomenon: ". . . the topic has, in my opinion, remained remarkablyintractableto thoroughgoing analysis. . . . Part of thisanalyticalrecalcitrancederives from

thegreatdifficulties in collectingsuitabledata to carryadequatetheoretical formulations." The studiesreviewedherecan leave no doubtregarding eitherthesubstantialscale of impermanent mobility in Indonesiaor itseconomicand social It behoovesus to developa strategy significance. forobtainingsureestimates


78

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ofthevolume,location,direction, ofthisformof andstructural characteristics mobility. Thisinevitably meansincorporating appropriate questionsin thecensus and large-scalenationalsamplesurveys.A numberof possibilities immediatelypresentthemselves. The first is duringthefullcensuscountto ask both a person'susualplaceofresidenceandhisplace ofresidenceon thenightofthe census.Thisde facto/de jurecomparison was carriedoutwithsomesuccessin the 1930 Indonesiancensus(Volkstelling, 1933-1936),enablingthe colonial censustakersto createa special categoryof "personstemporarily present." Thisis a particularly important priority. In addition,it wouldbe highlydesirable to includea workplacequestionin thecensus.Unfortunately it couldnot be includedin thefullcount,whichis restricted to fouror fivequestions,and wouldhave to be incorporated in the samplecensus.6 Sample surveysthat adoptcluster-type samplingprocedurescreatedifficulties because census-definedmovement is nota completely ubiquitouspopulationcharacteristic and moverstendto be concentrated in particular areas,leadingto problemsin inthesamplefigures to thetotalpopulation.The designoftheworkplace flating questionand thetabulation plan wouldneed extensiveresearchand frequent testing.The questionwould need to be appliedto all occupationsheld by individualsthroughout theyearpriorto enumeration, to takeaccountof the highincidenceofmultiple job-holdingin Indonesia(especiallyamongcircular migrants and commuters) and seasonality in circularmovements. Censusofficials may understandably blanchat theprospectof constructing workplace/ usualplace oflivingmatricesforsucha hugepopulationlivingin sucha complexanddisparatecountry as Indonesia.However,severalappropriate collapsing proceduresapplied to enumeration unitsin tabulationswould greatly reducethesize of thematricesneeded.7 Manyotherareasinwhichresearchis muchneededhavebeenalludedto in thispaper.In particular, further investigation is requiredintothecause and effectrelationships betweennonpermanent mobilityand (1) widersocial and economicpatterns in Indonesiansociety,(2) spatial,sectoral,and social inequalities,and (3) development. Thereis also a need forfurther testingof the limitedtheoretical explanations of nonpermanent mobility and forintegrating themintoa moresatisfactory andusefulframework. Moreresearchshouldalso be directedtowardidentifying and clarifying the policyimplications of this formof mobility.

Notes This is a revisedversionof a paperpresented tionalUniversity, forsupportin the preparato thesessionon "FormsofImpermanent Mo- tionof thispaper. bility:Emerging Insights"at the1981meeting 1 The literature of the PopulationAssociationof America, is repletewithpronounceofJava'sinhabitants, Washington, D.C. The authoris grateful tothe mentson theimmobility based on census and traditionallarge-scale Department of Demography, Australian Na-


Graeme

J. Hugo

79

4 Naim (1976) speaks of some Dayak surveyevidence(e.g., McNicoll, 1968: 33youngmento engagein cir39; Bryant,1973;Naim,1974;FryerandJack- groupsrequiring on theirreturntheyare tatson, 1977:18). For a fullcritiqueof suchpro- cularmigration; see Hugo (1975: 234-238). nouncements tooed to indicate that they have attained regions used manhood. 2 The migration-defining 5 The urbaninformalsector,in turn,is whichnotonlyarevery werethe26 provinces, in largein bothpopulationand areal termsbut able to adjustto theseseasonalfluctuations in also varywidelyintheirsize andshape.Field- labor availabilitybecause of fluctuations permanent peak labordemandacross ruralareas due to worksuggeststhatintraprovincial rainfall,micromigrants outnumbertheir interprovinciallocal variationsin irrigation, detectedin thecensusby at least climate,and varietiesof riceplanted. counterparts fiveto one (Hugo, 1981a). 6 The samplingfractionapplied in the a de jurecount, second stage of the 1980 census variedbeThecensuswas essentially a moverhad tweendifferent andto be classifiedas a migrant, typesof areas, but averaged forat leastsix approximately to havebeen at his destination 5 percentof households. months.For a discussionof thetimecriteria 7 Simple breakdownsof workplacesas migrants and itsimplications used in defining beingwithinthe same kabupaten,otherkasee Hugo (1981a). in the province,otherkotamadya 3 Personal communicationfrom Dr. bupaten in the province,otherprov(municipalities) MichaelDove, CenterforPopulationStudies, inces (consideredseparatelyor in groups) IndoYogyakarta, Gadjah Mada University, wouldsuffice. nesia.

References in WestSumatra Abdullah,T., 1971.Schooland Politics:TheKaumMuda Movement Series. Indonesia Monograph Modern Project, Cornell New York: 1927-1933. Abustam,M. I., 1975. TukangSepatu Toraja Di UjungPandang (Torajanshoe reIlmu-Ilmu pairersin UjungPandang).UjungPandang:PusatLatihanPenelitian Sosial. Africa.London:OxfordUniverAmin,S. (ed.), 1974.ModernMigrationsin Western sityPress. Amiroelah,B. M. et al., 1976. Masalah PerpindahanPendudukPropinsiSulawesi problemin theprovinceof SouthSulawesi).UjungPanSelatan (The migration dang:HasanuddinUniversity. 1981.AngkaSementaraJumlahPendudukDari SensusPenduduk BiroPusatStatistik, of thetotalpopulationfromthe1980census).Jakarta: figures 1980 (Preliminary Biro PusatStatistik.Mimeo. comparisonsof therateof Boertlein,C. G., and L. H. Long, 1979. "International to theAnmethods." Paper presented of three Application internalmigration: nual Meetingof thePopulationAssociationof America.Philadelphia,April. in Serpong,WestJava:A baselinestudy."MaA., 1974. "Fertility Borkent-Niehof, Indonesia1: 162-168. jalah Demografi capitalism:The crushingof and co-operative Breman,J., 1979. "Seasonal migration cane and of labourby the sugarfactoriesof Bardol, SouthGujarat."Part2. JournalofPeasantStudies6, no. 2: 168-209. Bruner,E. M., 1972. "Batakethnicassociationsin threeIndonesiancities." Mimeo. resourcesin CentralJava: Bryant,N. A., 1973. "Populationpressureand agricultural The dynamicsof change." Ph.D. Thesis,MichiganStateUniversity.


80

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Castles,L., 1967.Religion,PoliticsandEconomicBehaviorinJava: TheKudusCigaretteIndustry.New Haven: Yale University SoutheastAsia Studies. Colfer,C. J., 1981."On circularmigration: Fromthedistaff side." Mimeo. Connell,J., 1980. "Remittances and ruraldevelopment: Migration,dependencyand inequalityin the SouthPacific." Paperpresentedto the DevelopmentStudies CentreConferenceon PopulationMobilityand Development.The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra,October. Elkan,W., 1959. "Migrantlaborin Africa:An economist'sapproach."AmericanEconomicReview49: 188-197. , 1967. "Circularmigration andthegrowth of townsin East Africa."InternationalLabor Review96: 581-589. Fan, Y K., and A. Stretton, 1980. "Circularmigration in SoutheastAsia: Some theoreticalexplanations."Department of Economics,University of SouthernCalifornia,ResearchPapers,no. 8002. Forbes,D., 1978. "Urban-rural interdependence: The trishawdriversof UjungPandang." In Food, Shelterand Transport inSoutheastAsia and thePacific,ed. P. J.Rimmeret al. Canberra:The Australian NationalUniversity, ResearchSchool of PacificStudies,Department of HumanGeography. , 1980. "Mobilityandunevendevelopment in Indonesia:A critiqueofexplanationsofmigration andcirculation."Paperpresented to theDevelopment Studies CentreConferenceon PopulationMobilityand Development.The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra,October. Fox, J. J., 1977. Harvestof the Palm: Ecological Change in EasternIndonesia. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press. Franke,R., 1972. "The greenrevolution in a Javanesevillage." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, HarvardUniversity. Fryer,D. W., and J. C. Jackson,1977.Indonesia.London:ErnestBenn. Geertz,C., 1963. Agricultural Involution:The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia.Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Gerold-Scheepers, T., andW. M. J. VanBinsbergen, 1978. "MarxistandnonMarxist approachesto migration in TropicalAfrica."AfricanPerspectives1: 21-36. Goantiang,T., 1968. "Some noteson internal in Indonesia."International migration Migration6: 39-48. Hadi, A. S., 1981."Populationmobility in NegriSembilan,Malaysia." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, FlindersUniversity of SouthAustralia,Adelaide. Hagerstrand, T., 1962. "Geographicmeasurements ofmigration: Swedishdata."Monaco Colloquia in HumanScience 16: 61-83. Herrick,B. H., 1965. Urban Migrationand Economic Developmentin Chile. Cambridge:MIT Press. Holmes, J. H., 1965. "The suburbanization of the Cessnock coalfieldtowns: 1954-64." AustralianGeographicalStudies3: 105-128. Hugo, G. J., 1975. "Populationmobilityin WestJava,Indonesia."Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Demography, The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra. , 1978.PopulationMobilityin WestJava. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University Press. of populationmovement to 1971.Migration , 1979. "Patterns to and fromJakarta.The impactofmigration on villagesinJava." MigrationandDevelopment inSoutheastAsia: A DemographicPerspective,ed. R. J. Pryor.Kuala Lampur: OxfordUniversity Press. , 1980. "Populationmovements in Indonesiaduringthecolonialperiod." Indo-


Graeme

81

J. Hugo

nesia: AustralianPerspectives, ed. J. J. Fox, R. G. Garnaut,P. T. McCawley, andJ.A. C. Mackie.Canberra:Australian NationalUniversity ResearchSchool of PacificStudies. , 1981a."Sourcesof internalmigration data in Indonesia:Theirpotentialand limitations."Mimeo. , 1981b."Road transport, populationmobility and development in Indonesia." PopulationMobility andDevelopment: SoutheastAsia and thePacific,ed. G. W. JonesandH. V. Richter.Canberra:Australian NationalUniversity Development StudiesCentreMonographno. 27. ties,villagenormsand villageand ethnicsocial , 1981c."Village-community " InMigrationDecisionMaking,ed. G. networks in migration decisionmaking. F. DeJongand R. W. Gardner.New York:Pergamon. "New conceptualapproachesto migration , forthcoming. in thecontextof urbanization:A discussionbased on Indonesianexperience."In PopulationMovements:TheirFormsand Functionsin Urbanization and Development, ed. P. A. Morrison.Liege: International UnionfortheScientific Studyof Population. , andI. B. Mantra(eds.), forthcoming. PopulationMobilityinIndonesia:Proceedingsofa Workshop. Yogyakarta: Population Institute, GadjahMada University. Institute ofRuralandRegionalStudies(IRRS), 1977.Seasonal Migrantsand Commutersin Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: IRRS, Gadjah Mada University. Jellinek, L., 1978a. "The Ponkoksystemand circularmigration."In The Lifeof the Poor in IndonesianCities. Centerof SoutheastAsian Studies,MonashUniversity. " In Food, Shel,1978b. "Circularmigration andthePondokdwellingsystem. terand Transportin SoutheastAsia and thePacific,ed. P. J. Rimmeret al. Canberra:The AustralianNationalUniversity, of HumanGeograDepartment phy,ResearchSchool of PacificStudies. Jones,G. W., 1977. The Populationof NorthSulawesi. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Press. University Kasden,L., 1970. "Shorttermmigration in a MiddleEasternreligio-ethnic community."In Migrationand Anthropology, ed. R. F. Spencer.Seattle:University of Press. Washington 1974. "MobilitasPendudukSekitarJakarta"(Populationmobility Koentjaraningrat, aroundJakarta). MasyarakatIndonesia1, no. 2. " BulletinofIndonesian ,1975. "Population invillagesaroundJakarta. mobility EconomicStudies11,no. 2: 108-119. Lewan,N., 1969. "Hiddenurbanization in Sweden."Tijdschrift voorEconomischeen Sociale Geografle60: 93-97. Lightfoot, and modernization in Northeast Thailand." P., 1980. "Circularmigration of Hull. Mimeo. University Lineton,J., 1975. "Pasompe' Ugi': Bugis migrantsand wanderers."Archipel10: 173-201. The impacton rural Lipton,M., 1980. "Migrationfromruralareasofpoorcountries: and incomedistribution." productivity WorldDevelopment8, no. 1: 1-24. Lucardie,G. R. E. 1979."The Makianese:Preliminary remarks on theanthropological studyof a migration-oriented peoplein theMoluccas." Mimeo. , 1981."The geographical and traditions mobility oftheMakianese:Migratory resettlement." Mimeo. McNicoll,G. 1968. "Internalmigration in Indonesia."Indonesia5: 29-92.


82

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Mangunrai, H., 1979.MigranTorajaDi KotamadyaUjungPandang(Torajanmigrants in UjungPandang).UjungPandang:HasanuddinUniversity. Mantra,I. B., 1978. "Populationmovement in wetricecommunities: A case studyof twoDukuhin Yogyakarta SpecialRegion."Ph.D. Thesis,University ofHawaii. in CentralJava. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada Uni, 1981.PopulationMovement versityPress. Masri,M., 1963. "Bogorsebagaikotaforensakeretaapi." Dissertation in Geography. IKIP Bandung. Maude, A. M., 1979. "Intervillagedifferences in outmigration in WestSumatra." JournalofTropicalGeography49: 41-54. , 1980. "How circularis Minangkabau migration?" IndonesianJournalofGeography9, no. 37: 1-12. Meilink,H. A., 1978. "Some economicinterpretations of migration." AfricanPerspectives1: 51-66. Mitchell,J. C., 1978. "Wage labormobilityas circulation: A sociologicalperspective." Paperpresented to theInternational Seminaron theCrossCulturalStudy of Circulation, East-West Center,Honolulu,April. Mudjiman,H., 1978. "Consequencesofrecurrent movement on thefamilyat theplace of origin:A comparative case studyof two villagesaroundSurakarta."MimSebelas Maret,Surakarta. eographedResearchProposal.Universitas Murad,A., 1980.Merantau:Outmigration in a MatrilinealSocietyof WestSumatra. Canberra:The Australian NationalUniversity, of Demography. Department Naim, M., 1971. "Merantau:Causes and effectsof Minangkabauvoluntary migration." Institute of SoutheastAsian Studies,Singapore,OccasionalPapers,5. , 1974. "Merantau:Minangkabauvoluntary migration."Ph.D. Dissertation, of Singapore. University , 1976. "Voluntary in Indonesia."In InternalMigration:The New migration Worldand theThirdWorld,ed. A. H. Richmondand D. Kubat.London:Sage. Nelson,J., 1978. "Policyaspectsof temporary and permanent in cityward migration developingcountries."Paperpresented to IUSSP Committee on Migrationand Urbanization Meetingon New ConceptualApproachestotheStudyofMigration in theContextof Urbanization. Bellagio,Italy,July. Ormeling,F. J., 1956.The TimorProblem:A GeographicalInterpretation ofan UnJ. B. Wolters. and Groningen: Island. Jakarta derdeveloped Radial,M., 1965.RencanaKota Serang(Serangcityplan). Jakarta: Direktorat PerencanaanKota Dan Daerah,DepartmenCiptaKaryaDan Konstruksi. Rambe,A. 1977.UrbanisasiOrangAlabioDi Banjarmasin(Urbanization of theAlabio in Banjarmasin).Banjarmasin: Facultyof Economics,LambungMangkurat University. Ranneft, J. M., 1916.Volksverplaatsing op Java.Tijdschrift voorhetBinnenlandsch Bestuur49: 59-87, 165-184. of Rumbiak,M., 1979. UrbanisasiOrang GenyemDi Kota Jayapura(Urbanization theGenyemin Jayapura).Abe Jayapura: Universitas Cenderawasih. Rusli,S., 1978. "Inter-rural in Indonesia:The case of West migration and circulation Java." Unpublished M.A. Thesis,DevelopmentStudiesCentre,The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra. Siegel,J. T., 1969. The Rope of God. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. in Peru." Skeldon,R., 1977. "The evolutionofmigration patterns duringurbanization GeographicalReview67: 394-411.


Graeme

83

J. Hugo

Suharso,A. Speare,H. R. Redmana,and I. Husin,1976.Rural-UrbanMigrationin Indonesia.Jakarta: NationalInstitute of Economicand Social Research(LEKNAS-LIPI). Suhartoko, 1975.MerantauBagi OrangWajo. UjungPandang:PusatLatihanPenelitianIlmu-IlmuSosial. Universitas Hasanuddin. Suratha,I. G. W., 1977.TukangMebel TorajaUjungPandang.UjungPandang:Pusat LatihanPenelitianIlmu-IlmuSosial. Universitas Hasanuddin. TempleG., 1975. "Migration to Jakarta." BulletinofIndonesianEconomicStudies11, no. 1: 76-81. In The Measurement of UrTermote, M., 1975. "The measurement of commuting." banizationand Projectionof UrbanPopulation,ed. S. Goldsteinand D. Sly. Liege: Ordina. inIndonesiaas a reflection of socialand Titus,M. J.,1978a."Inter-regional migration regionalinequalities."Tijdschrift voorEconomischeen Sociale Geografie69, no. 4: 194-204. , 1978b.MigrasiAntarDaerah Di IndonesiaSebagai CerminanKetimpangan RegionalDan Sosial. Yogyakarta: Population Institute, GadjahMada University Translation Seriesno. C12. VanBinsbergen, W. M. J.,and H. A. Meilink,1978. "Migrationand thetransformationof modemAfricansociety:Introduction." AfricanPerspectives1: 7-20. vande VolkstellVolkstelling (PopulationCensus),1933-1936.Definitieve Uitkomsten van Landbouw,Nijverheiden Handel(8 vols.). ing1930. Batavia:Department J., 1964. "Bawean migrations." Vredenbregt, Bijdragentotde Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde120: 109-139. andtheirmeasureWhite,B., 1979. "Politicalaspectsofpoverty, incomedistribution ment:Some examplesfromruralJava."Development and Change 10: 91-114. Kebutuhan Kota." PedomanRakyat Yunus,D., 1979. " 'Pagandeng'SuplaierTerbesar 33, no. 33: 1-2. ofthemobility transition." Zelinsky,W., 1971."The hypothesis GeographicalReview 41, no. 2: 219-249.
