CHAPTER VII

FARM HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD AND COPING WITH CRISIS

A. The Livelihood Condition

Assessment method of the household welfare and poverty has evolved and

been adapted to the dynamic of contemporary development. It has been since 90’s

that livelihood studies are applied as a more comprehensive method to assess

household welfare. Income has been important factor to appraise household level of

welfare and poverty, however livelihood is more than merely synonymous with

income. The dictionary meaning of livelihood is a ‘means of a living’. It directs

attention to the way in which living is obtained. A livelihood comprises of assets

(natural physical, human, financial and social capital) the activities, and access to

these assets that together determine the living gained by the individual or household

(Ellis.2000). Access may vary from place to place due to different role of institutions

and social relations to mediate the access. This makes rural livelihood holds distinct

character to urban livelihood.

The application of livelihood in this study is the combination of assets,

capabilities, and need satisfaction that configure certain living typology. The

elements of assets in this study comprise also access to resources, ownership, and

relations in assets. Arrangements of access to assets cover land renting and

sharecropping, social status and skills. Ownership of livelihood assets concerns

especially with land, implements and machineries. Capabilities are represented by

proxy variables indicating pattern of use resources which comprises among other;

level of income and income security, expenditure of consumptive items, saving,

labour participation, and the use of capital and technology. The element of need

satisfaction is represented by three main variables i.e. coverage of basic needs and

subsistence level, room for wealth accumulation, and social safety network. With the

help of these determinants variables, the in-depth data from interview process is

arranged to classify livelihood condition. According to this livelihood condition,

farm household is then classified into three typologies i.e. better off, reasonable, and

shortage.

A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses

aid shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining tile

natural resource base. The 1998 monetary crisis is considered to be shock factor

disturbing the livelihood condition. With regard to sustainable livelihood, this study

also takes notice on the impact of that period of crisis and study of livelihood coping

to it. More than livelihood and crisis, this chapter is an effort to put together the

elements discussed in preceding chapters with the livelihood approach. The focus

discussion on farm household livelihood and coping with crisis is especially to

provide insight to the fifth research question on the topic of resistance and

vulnerability of farm household livelihood in coping with crisis and gradual change.

This chapter presents the view on livelihood condition, livelihood strategy and life

cycle, the impact and coping responses to crisis.

1. The Assets

In rural agrarian based area, land is the most important asset for livelihood.

The general simplicity is that the larger the size of the land, it will usually lead to a

better livelihood. However, more than the physical size, the consideration on land

quality should make clearer the difference in livelihood If the size is comparable,

then fertile land with regular irrigation should generate better livelihood than infertile

rain-fed land. If land factor is homogeneous, than the decisive factor after land is the

cultivation itself. Food crop cultivation may generate less level of livelihood than

horticulture or commercial cash crops. Table 7.1 indicates that the size of land in

constructing livelihood is varying according to area. However, the landless represent

category of shortage ‘household, either as farm labourer, sharecropper or tenants. It

is only in upland Giriasih shortage household still holds small land. It means that in

area where land is in low quality, small land ownership could not support the decent

livelihood. As usually mentioned in conventional view, the better-off farm

households in four areas are also ‘landowning elite’ holding larger size of farm land.

However the size of ownership among better-off farm household in different area is

not the same. The better-off farmer in Giriasih holds the largest in comparison to the

three other areas. This may stress the importance of considering quality of land size

in rural livelihood study of assets and not to merely concern with physical size.

The second assets in livelihood study concern with ownership of machineries

and implements. This asset highly relates with mode of production. There is a

tendency that more varied and advance agricultural tools and implements much

prevail in lowland horticulture crop production in Tirtohargo. Such area demands

implements for stages of agricultural cultivation i.e. land preparation, water control,

pest eradication, and harvestment. Another horticulture area of Wonokerto, the

agricultural tools for salak cultivation and harvestment are homogeneous and of

traditional nature including among other; scissors, inlay, hoe, and knife. This is

because land preparation take-place once time at the beginning of cultivation and

then it last long years as long as the age of the salak trees. There is almost no pest

eradication and therefore farmers require no sprayer. Salak farm households also do

not require valuable or modern implements to harvest and to handle post harvest

yields. Therefore, there is not yet mechanical, machine operated, or automated

implements that differentiate the category better off and reasonable farmer except of

the number of tools.

Table 7.1 indicates that very limited farmer owns hand-tractor. Diesel driven

water-pump is the second valuable implement Better-off farmers in Tirtohargo

mostly own this implement. The third valuable implement and more widely

distributed among reasonable and better-off farmer is sprayer for insecticide

eradication. In general; horticulture farmers in Tirtohargo own more advanced and

valuable implements than other area. The shortage category of farm household in

Tirtohargo does not have valuable implements. They usually only have traditional

and simple tools like hoe. The better-off farmer also gets some income from renting

out their implements. Ownership of valuable implements may also means that socio-

economic condition of farm household in this area is much better in comparison to

other area. The ownership and access to the instruments may facilitate the cultivation

method and the yield. The table indicates that for the other area, the type of

implements consist of less valuable than water-pump i.e. sprayer, thresher, and

plough.

Renting out implements also take place in Sidoharjo. The implements for

cultivation are less various and less developed than Tirtohargo. However, the gap on

the ownership of implements seems to be distinct in this area. Reasonable farmer

owns only traditional tools. They should borrow or rent sprayer from their better-off

neighbour. The distribution of ownership of implements in Giriasih looks similar to

Sidoharjo. The most developed and valuable implements in this area are sprayer. The

difference lies to the fact that in Giriasih there is no commercialization for

implements. The implements have social orientation and not for renting purposes.

Those who do not own implement then they may borrow it for free from the better-

off farmer or from farmers group association.

Social status has correlation with livelihood typology. The better-off farmers

are usually belonging to reasonable or high level social status as well. In the two

upland areas, formal occupation represents much of the high level social status. Land

ownership comes the second. Teacher or civil servant in upland community gets

peoples respect as having high social status more than large holding. In Tirtohargo,

the better-off farmer does not always have high social status. However they can

never be in low status. Some are reasonable status because they are in young age

group, have never seat a position in village local institution, or work as government

civil services. Similar with Tirtohargo, the better-off farmer in Wonokerto may get

reasonable or high social status. The reasonable status is given to those who are

better off in economic sense but do not have record of being local or village

communal institution. They do not either work as civil service or teacher.

The better-off farmers have some excess of their assets that give them

opportunity to get income from this excess. However there is variation in the asset to

commercialize and the system of access arrangements. In Tirtohargo, the asset to

commercialize is land and implements. In this area, land ownership is relatively

small and has been intensively cultivated. The access arrangements for the landless

and small farmer to make utilize of land is through money-based renting. In Giriasih

land is still available in sizeable amount. There is no landless farmer or tenant to

make use of other’s land. In this village, the asset for gaining additional income

outside cultivation is cattle. The table indicates, that better-off farmers in this area,

provide opportunity for shortage household to raise cattle in partnership mode

through the so-called share breeding. The sharing of livestock may use material or

money. The term of material in this regard, refers to dividing equal share for new

livestock that has been generated. The local term for this is maro anak, which

literally means dividing young cattle. The term of money refers to dividing equal

share of the added value that has been generated since the share-breeding contract

(mara bathi, dividing benefit). In Sidoharjo, the assets for tenancy are valid for both

land and cattle. The system of access arrangements is different with other area

formerly mentioned. The system of land-tenancy is predicated with the term as the

one-fifth (pro-liman) sharecropping. The 3/5 will go for capital, and the 2/5 will be

divided onto two i.e. the owner and the sharecropper.

2. The Capabilities

Level of income as elements of capabilities in livelihood shows varying

between categories of livelihood. The better-off farmer has high category of income.

However the income from agriculture is subject to change albeit it is minor. It

depends on the interwoven of many factors in its line of production that ranges from

input to product and marketing. The type of crops and commodity for instance has

different degree of risk. Although they are in similar group of horticulture crops,

income from shallots is more risky crops than salak snake fruit. The more diversified

cropping, system is considered to provide less risky income than monoculture.

As shown by table 7.1, the gap in income is less severe in upland Giriasih.

The better off farmer has income ranges from reasonable to high. Apart from income,

there is also no distinct picture of materials achievement in Giriasih. The house, for

instance, looks similar one to another in its traditional design. The egalitarian and

non-materialism character of upland Giriasih also appears in the ownership of

valuable goods. Vehicle, for instance, does not show a distinct character between

reasonable and better-off farmer. Ownership of land and cattle are the two indicators

that may indicate the variation in livelihood. The income and material classless

community do not happen in other areas. Giriasih also indicates the egalitarian of

living atmosphere as non-consumptive type of community. As Table 7.1 shows the

better-off farmer has similar pattern of expenditure and consumption with their

neighbour in reasonable category. They renovate their house from wooden and

traditional to be permanent type to be permanent. Some also use ceramic floor tile in

gradual process of construction. They have colour TV but do not see the importance

of refrigerator to make difference with their neighbour. Egalitarian condition of up-

land Giriasih does not seem to prevail in other area. In Tirtohargo, the better-off

farmers show different capabilities as indicated by among other their home

appliances, automotives, and physical appearance of the house. The wealth of salak

farmer in Wonokerto also appears in the house, car, and home appliances. House is

usually big or multi-storied with modern design. It is furnished with TV, refrigerator,

CD/ VCD players set, and the like. All salak farmers have motor-cycle but in general

only the better-off own car.

Saving as a variable of capabilities in livelihood approach show variation

between upland farming and the other two horticulture areas. In commercial

agriculture areas, saving is high among the better off in various income generating

assets like cattle, land, and machine. The saving also takes places in the form of

valuable and non-depreciated goods like gold and jewellery. In this regard, the

process of accumulating happens within this class. For the upland better-off farmer,

find also becomes subject for saving. However, land in upland areas has less

commercial value than in the commercial horticulture areas. It is different because

land is still entitled for its social contents. The land is not rented out in Giriasih

whereas in Sidoharjo, it is also not for rented but for sharecropping. Therefore there

is small income being generated from saving of asset in land that does not bring

better-off farmers in accumulation process. The same case is also valid for cattle.

Saving in the form of cattle still keeps its social contents through share breeding for

their neighbour. As indicated by the table, shortage and reasonable farmer cans get

benefit from better-off farmer through share-breeding process.

Employment status is also important aspect of capabilities. The better-off

farmer generally combines with other non-farm activities. In the two-uplands, most

better off works as government civil service notably teacher. In salak area,

Wonokerto, the better-off farmer combines either with government civil service or

non-government formal sector. It is only in Tirtohargo, where most salak farmers do

not combine with non-farm activities. Employment combination is typical rural mode

of occupation. Not only the better off perform this, but also reasonable and shortage

category of household. However, as the table suggest, the type and quality of job

indicate differentiation. The middle category of livelihood combines agriculture with

more independent self-employing work like trade, artisan, cottage and household

industry, driver, and motorcycle broker- The lowest layer of livelihood combines

agriculture works with low return labour type of work either in agriculture or in non-

agriculture. The type of works includes agriculture labour, construction labour,

sewing labour, and general labour. In upland area, type of labour relates to

agriculture work. Whereas in Tirtohargo it more relates to more urban type non-

agricultural jobs like construction worker and sewing worker.

The common pattern of labour participation is that all better off farmer use

non-family labour. This wage labour is dominant in all mode of agriculture

production. In the second category of livelihood, family takes part in production. The

role of family from reasonable household is dominant in upland horticulture.

Especially in upland Giriasih, family is prime executor of cultivation. Production

activities are important element of capabilities in rural livelihood study. It is

realization of asset for livelihood. Size of land as an asset for livelihood is still

potential to build livelihood condition. In this regard, similar sizes of land may have

different contribution in livelihood due to different farmer choice in production

activities. The table indicates that variation in production activities does not only

happen between areas, but also between livelihood categories The exception in this

case is for Wonokerto where production activities concentrate on monoculture of

snake fruit salak. In general, the characteristic of the better off farm household is to

cultivate income-generating crops whereas the shortage category has orientation on

subsistence crops. This still prevails even in commercial agriculture area like

Tirtohargo. The shortage category of farm household keeps cultivating food crops

and secondary crops. This choice is not merely subsistence reason but also the

unaffordable cost of cultivation commercial crops.

3. The Need Satisfaction

Commercial agriculture brings also materialism. It does reduce social content

of agriculture and shifts toward more money-based system in rural agricultural

community. Land tenancy for instance, has bein shift from share cropping mode

toward renting mode. In commercial area, money-less farmer do not have access to

cultivate land except as labour. This happens especially in Tirtohargo where land-

less should have money to have access in land cultivation. On the contrary, in upland

Sidoharjo, land-less farmer still have access through sharecropping in one-fifth

agreements. As table indicates, in commercial area, the better off farmers show

distinct difference wealth between the belier off and other class in community. The

wealth of better off farmer is observable in physical appearance of the house;

complete and modern home appliances, and vehicles. House of better off farmer is

different with their neighbour. It has modern style aid sometimes double-storey

Home appliances have also been modernized and differ with their neighbour. If the

shortage household still use fuel-wood for their kitchen matter, the reasonable farmer

use kerosene stove, then the better off has already used gas stove. In ownership of

vehicles as part of wealth indication, there is also hierarchy. The shortage has only

bicycle, the reasonable owns motorcycle, then the better off has car. The more

commercialised the area the more distinct livelihood class differentiation. In the less

commercial area like upland Giriasih, the wealth differentiation on the basis of

luxurious goods and housing does not come out.

In basic needs coverage, farm household in commercial area do not have any

difficulty to fulfill it. They can even exceed basic needs. This happens to Wonokerto

salak farmers where the better off and the reasonable has been in the level of

exceeding basic needs. In other area, the reasonable category of livelihood has been

in sufficient category, a little lower than exceed category. In upland less commercial

area like Giriasih. The simple ness of community live style has resulted in the level

of modest fulfillment of basic needs. They have different but simple standard of

basic needs in. comparison to more modern life in commercial agriculture area. In

food, for instance, the better off in upland has similar menu with other neighbour to

eat daily rice, local vegetable, and soybean cake. Once a while they may have egg,

but they-way have meat or chicken in their dish when the wives go to market in

weekly period.

Social network in general is important element of need satisfaction, but not

for the better off. They are out off scheme for social network with emphasis for

subsistence purposes like social safety network (JPS = Jaring Pengaman Sosial,

cheap rice for poor people (raskin = beras untuk penduduk miskin). They also do not

use social network for cultivation purposes like farmer credit (KUT= kredit usaha

tani) to buy agricultural inputs. In Giriasih, the better off farmer provide remittances

for their children in urban areas. As indicated by table, social network also indicates

hierarchy according to different level of livelihood. Better off farmers do not relevant

for social network, they even become provider of social network. Social network is

important source for reasonable farmer especially for education and investment, and

important element for shortage household for (subsistence) food, and education.

4. Shifts And Adjustment

The elements of livelihood are subject to change. The pace of change and

factors may different between individual and area. In commercial area, livelihood has

been much easier to shift than-in subsistence area. It is because the cash and the price

have shaped the line of the production structure. The additional cash invested as

capital either in better or more input, in tools and implements, and also in land may

stimulate the quality and quantity or yield. In contrary, the reduced, loss, or shift in

capital may weaken production structure, yield and income. The second factor is that

commercial area much depends on market demand and purchasing power. When the

purchasing power gets better, the demand will be stimulated to increase as well The

commercial crops may get benefit from it. On the contrary, when the purchasing

power drives down, the demand will be weaken. The result is that the income from

commercial crops will be lessening. This process does not happen in more

subsistence character of agriculture. The change in productions structure is less

dynamic. In this area, the natural process may act as dominant factor in the shift of

livelihood condition. Agriculture relies on family labour. When one member of

family worker leaving home to migrate, or getting old mid withdraw themselves

from the work, this will affect the production process and yield. The change in

livelihood condition may take one between the two forms i.e. a shift or an

adjustment. The term shift in livelihood means to refer the conversion in category,

either step up to higher category or step down to lower category of livelihood

condition. The term of adjustment means to refer to modification within respective

category. It is just the internal process without changing category, but its condition

experience improvement to be better or deterioration to be worsening.

a. Shift-Conversion in Category

Table 7.2 indicates that in every village there is at least one case of a shift in

livelihood condition due to different reason. In Giriasih, a case of shift is from

shortage to reasonable condition. The major factor is due to the addition of wealth

and capital through remittances from children in city. This shortage category of

tamer was used to combine agriculture with petty trader. The remittance is significant

enough. That it can compensate to the withdrawal from petty trader. The family

support through remittance also prevails in Tirtohargo. This remittance has been used

to expand land for cultivation. This has lead to the shift of livelihood condition from

reasonable to be better off. The second case in this area is a kind of occupational

diversification through cross-investment from agriculture income to chicken trader.

This routine has then gradually helped to shift from livelihood condition of shortage

to reasonable.

The opposite course has taken place in Sidoharjo i.e a shift from better off

condition to be reasonable. This happens to a female-headed household that reducing

involvement in agriculture due to becoming old. The withdrawal from agriculture has

resulted to leasing land to other and, therefore, decreasing income from agriculture.

In salak area Wonokerto, the two processes take place. The positive case is the shift

from livelihood category of reasonable to better off. This is because of cross-

investment process. Income from non-farm source has been utilised to expand land

under cultivation. The negative case is a step down category from better off to be

reasonable livelihood condition. This is due to the loss of asset in the form of car. It

used to be employ for transportation work. The expensiveness, of maintenance has

resulted in selling of the asset. The result is that the loss of household income from

non-farm source

b. Modification / adjustment within Category

In Giriasih internal adjustment for improvement happens in reasonable

category of livelihood condition. The source for such process comes from

compensation money of early resignment from urban works. The compensation

money is utilized for buying cattle and for capital to become wood trader. Different

process takes place in Tirtohargo. The major cause is more natural process than.

economy. It relates to the live cycle factor. Children have been grown-up and go for

works. This does not mean only reducing parents burden but parents get also support

from children. The help of children has resulted in improvement of household

livelihood condition. In Sidoharjo, there is a case of farm household in the category

of reasonable livelihood that experiencing improvement. This happens due to saving

from agricultural income in combination with remittance from children in the city are

utilized to expand land, and to diversify, occupation by opening stall / kiosk in local

market.

The variation on the agricultural change indicates that agriculture is relatively

stable. It can suffice household needs and expenses. However, to fasten the process

of welfare improvement the role of non-agricultural income or remittances become

apparent. The non-agricultural sources of income drives has been important to

stimulate welfare improvement in all area.

B. Livelihood Strategy and Life Cycle

1. Livelihood Strategy

Strategy refers to a set of measured handling in following route to achieve

certain objectives. Farm household has some differences in their production

orientation. Even, in similar livelihood condition can show contrasting orientation.

One may already feel satisfy with the current condition, the other is still occupied

with obsession to expand and foster its business. To elaborate the variation on its

orientation, it is important to apply livelihood strategy approach. Livelihood strategy

has differentiated farm household into three different categories i.e accumulation,

consolidation, and survival. (Titus. 2005 White.1976). Accumulation household has

orientation to improve profit and income through expanding and adding production

asset, commercialization, and efficiency of the activities. This type of strategy tends

to be progressive, risk taker, and expansionist. The moderate category is

consolidation. It is different with the former for it gives priority to household

sufficiency, and stability in production asset. This category belongs to the schism of

security first. The third category is attributed with survival to mean maximization of

household own resources in order to fulfill household basic needs. Under the

pressing of this orientation, the survival household tends to avoid any risk of

activities and therefore take a distance from any innovation. Resource maximization,

especially manpower, cannot yet to uplift the household to appropriate standard of

living.

There is significance difference between farm household categories. As indicated by

table 7.2, household in survival category shows having minus value of some

variables. This indicates that reduction and lessening happens to the variables in

order to secure the basic needs. Different with survival strategy, the accumulation

households experience the strengthening in assets, activities, and, accordingly,

wealth. These three elements make dialectical process. The increasing asset in the

form of production land demands more labour and also demands increasing capital

input and technology. The result will be more products with market orientation. The

increasing product and marketing has resulted in increasing income to open room for

wealth accumulation.

2. Livelihoods and Live-cycle

The explanation on livelihood condition and strategy do not always come

from socioeconomic factors. Many wealth conditions may have strong correlation

with natural demographic processes. One important process is the so-called ‘life-

cycle’. Rural community does have considerable value that places life cycle into

important factor to establish rural resistance and resilient livelihood. One stage of life

cycle has different demand on consumption and expenses to other stages. In a young

stage family, for instance, a family with children in primary school, the expenses for

education and child caring has not been yet as large as a family with grown-up

children. However, children do not always mean economic burden like most urban

people may usually see it. In rural community, they may become family labour and

be part of production factor.

Life cycle can be grouped into four categories. These are;

1. the young couple family, it is a young married couple with children in the

elementary school or less,

2. the adult married couple family, it is an adult married couple with children still

attending school of above elementary school enrolment,

3. the old married couple, it is an old married couple with no more children in

school,

4. the cross generation married couple, it is a family consisting of grand children,

their parents, and their grand parents, or just grand parents with grand children.

The study indicates that the dominant type of life cycle is adult family and

cross generation family. It is distributed in all livelihood categories. However, they

are dominant in consolidation category. The cross generation family is interesting

from socio-cultural perspective. It is also special character of eastern, particularly

Java tradition that differentiate it from nuclear base family such as in European

family structure. The table indicates that this has been dominant in upland Giriasih

and to a lesser extent in Sidoharjo. The observation in the two upland areas shows

that many school-age children has been entrusted to their grand parents while their

parents live in the cities or even working abroad. This is the practical way usually

being taken as strategy to cope with the expensiveness of living cost, education cost,

and child caring cost in cities. The same amount of cost is more than enough to do

the same thing in village. There is still excess money if parents send their children to

their grand parents in village. The excess money can form remittances for improving

livelihood condition in rural area. The remittances value will be much higher if the

sources come from working abroad.

There is an indication that those who take this approach are mostly

consolidation household. This is understandable considering that children of

accumulation household in the cities are usually also doing well that they do not send

their children to the grand parents in the village. They can keep and support their

own children to school at the cities for better quality. On the contrary, the survival

category of farm households does not have capability to facilitate appropriate

education and child caring. Cross generation extended family in general dominant in

upland Giriasih and very limitedly happen in commercial agriculture Wonokerto.

This may stress the fact that in commercial agriculture, the household wealth has

been significant. They can afford to facilitate the good living of their children to

stand on their foot. In upland Giriasih, the prevalence of out-migration of young and

educated group is significant. This has led to the labour shortage for agriculture and

other sectors. The depopulation trend and aging can be observed from the number of

senior household. They are just a couple family living with no more children. This

has affected to the declining intensity of land utilization. In upland Giriasih

agricultural land is differentiated into three types. Flat ‘valley’ land or ngare in local

term), is designated for rice field. Sloping area above the valley is called ‘perengan’

it is terraced field and especially for cultivation of secondary crops. The better off

household may cultivate cash crop like tobacco or chili in this field. The third layer

of land classification is called ‘alas' literally means forest. This part is for wood

products and forest production. Out migration process of economically active

population has resulted in the limitation of available labour for cultivation. Aging

process has resulted in the withdrawal of senior labour from agricultural activities.

The result is that agricultural cultivation and labour force has been focused only on

ngare where water is available for rice cultivation. Labour shortage has made the

‘perengan’ no longer being cultivated to grow food and horticulture crops but ‘forest’

woods. This is because growing perennial woods demand less labour and

maintenance. This becomes farm households exit and adaptive choices to labour

limitation. Aging and depopulation through out migration has reduced population

pressures on land and stimulated process of reforestation.

C. The Impact of Crisis

1. Inputs: Availability, Price, and Use

In all research areas, crisis does not give worsening effect on the availability

of seed. Farmers still feel that seed for their cultivation is still available up to the

demanded quantity. The major reason for this condition may be related to the fact

that seeds are not imported. it is all locally produced. The second factor is related to

the seasonality of cultivation period that

Agricultural Production

a. Food Crops

The food crops in agricultural census and survey cover two types i.e. rice

(paddy) and secondary crops. Paddy is differentiated into i.e. wetland paddy and

dryland paddy. The name has already indicated the type of field for growing the

crops as well as the mode of production. Wetland paddy is cultivated in lowland and

irrigated field, whereas dryland paddy is cultivated in upland rainfed field. Secondary

crops encompass grains and cereals, tuber and roots, and beans. The following table

3.9 indicates that from harvested area, paddy is the most dominant type of food

crops. The main source of lowland paddy in DIY is Sleman. The harvested area of

paddy in Sleman is 52,4% of total area in DIY. The capacity of its production

supplies 41,4% of total paddy production in DIY. However, the productivity of

paddy in Sleman is slightly lower than productivity in Bantul and Kulonprogo. With

regard to dryland paddy. Gunungkidul is almost the sole producer of dryland paddy.

The harvested area is 98,1 % of total area of dryland paddy in DIY and the

production is 97,8% of total dryland production in DIY. Dryland paddy has

reasonably important position in food production. One third (29,3%) of paddy

production is dryland whereas the rest two third is lowland paddy. However, most of

dryland paddy is for one year round self-consumption (subsistence).

The second important food crop is maize. The harvested area of maize is the

second after paddy. The primary producer of maize is Gunungkidul. The share of

harvested area of the regency is 59,82% whereas the contribution of production is

74,60% of maize in the D1Y. However, the productivity level of maize in

Gunungkidul catches only half of other area. This stresses the agro-ecological

condition of the area which is less favourable for agricultural production. Unlike

production of dryland paddy which is kept for self-consumption of people in

Gunungkidul, maize is marketed for cash. The rest one fourth of production is

distributed in another three regencies.

The third important crop, as indicated by the size of harvested area and

production, is cassava. The proportion of harvested area in Gunungkidul is 83,27%.

It contribute to 72,77% of production of cassava in DTY. Cassava has been

important Food crop for people Gunungkidul, it was used to be the main dish for

people in Gunungkidul during the period of malaise and agricultural stagnation up to

1960’s. However, as in the case of maize, agricultural land productivity in the

regency is lower than the other three regencies. The productivity of cassava is almost

half of other regency cassava productivity. The fourth important food crop is

soybean. Gunungkidul regency seems to establish as agricultural area for food crop.

After dryland paddy, maize, and cassava that dominates the food crop production in

DIY, Gunungkidul also major producer of soybean. The proportion of harvested area

constitutes 79,7% of soybean harvested area in DIY, whilst the production share is

73,5 % of soybean yield in DIY. The same problem with the formerly discussed

foodcrops production in Gunungkidul is that in productivity is the lowest in

comparison to other regency in DIY. Peanut is the fifth important food crop in DIY.

The rest food crops shown in table have very limited harvested area and production.

These are; sweet potatoes. green peanuts, and cantel. Gunungkidul also leads in

production of peanuts. The proportion of harvested area is 70,8% of total harvested

area in DIY whereas the share of production is 66,35%. The land productivity of

peanuts in Gunungkidul is the lowest in DIY, although the difference is not as high

as the former four discussed food crops. This again stressed the fact that

Gunungkidul is more specialised in food crop cultivation.

b. Vegetables

There are two vegetables in DIY, which have exceptional size of harvested

area and value of production. Table 3.10 shows that harvested area of chili is 1.974

ha with production value worth of 16,499 ton, whereas harvested area of shallot is

1.795 ha and production value of 21,514 ton. They are exceptional in comparison

with harvested area of other vegetables which have size less than 1000 ha. The table

indicates that Bantul is the highest harvested area of chili (41,1%). However, the

cultivation of chili is not only widely distributed among the four regencies, but in

each regency the harvested area of chili is dominant. In Kulonprogo and Sleman, the

harvested area of chili is the highest among vegetables. In Bantul it is the second

after shallot whereas in Gunungkidul it comes the second after string bean. The

sizeable harvested area of chilli may suggest that this vegetables becomes important

source of agriculture income in DIY. The other vegetable in the first category of

highest harvested area is shallot. Different with chili with tend to be distributed, there

is no shallot cultivated in Sleman. Shallot is highly concentrated in Bantul up to

proportion of 74,7%. The rest one fourth is divided into 19.6% in Kulonprogo and

5.4% in Gunungkidul. The second vegetables are those having harvested area less

than 1000 ha but above 500 ha. They are string bean, Chinese cabbage, and spinach.

The third group of vegetables concerns with harvested area between 100-500 ha.

These vegetables are kidney beans, swamp cabbage, leek, and cucumber. The rest

vegetables are belonging to the least harvested are that are below 100 ha. These are

tomato, green bean, cabbage, and potato. Sleman and Kulonprogo have some

vegetables with large scale harvested area, but the size is lower compare to especially

Gunungkidul. Each of these two regencies concentrates on four main commodities if

harvested area is concerned. However they may be specialised area due to dominant

in production of certain crop. Kulonporogo is almost the sole producer of leek.

Sleman is major producer of Chinese cabbage.

From area point of view it can be assumed that there are area differentiation

according to mode of production. The specialization area is represented by Bantul

which tend to concentrate on chili and shallot. The diversification area in vegetables

is represented by Gunungkidul where several commodity is cultivated in sizeable

area this encompasses string bean, shallot, spinach, kidney beans, Chinese cabbage

and swamp cabbage. The problem is that the productivity is low. This makes their

share of yield is lower than other regency that has smaller harvested area. This fact is

in line with conventional views that the more specialised the area, the more

production tends to be commercialise. In contrary, the more diversified the mode of

production, the less commercialised the production orientation (Hinderink and

Sterkenhurg, 1987; Maurer, 1997)

c. Fruit Crops

There are two types of Fruit crops i.e. perennial and non-perennial type& The

cultivation and treatment of perennial fruit trees have not yet been as intensive as

non- perennial fruit crops. In fact, there is only limited number of non-perennial fruit

crops that are cultivated and treated in intensive form like the case of commercial

horticulture. From number of fruit tree, salacias/ salak is the most leading fruit tree in

DIY. As table 3.11 indicates that the difference in number of’ trees between salak

and the other fruit trees is sizeable. There is no tree that can reach 1 million stalks,

however salak stalks amount to 2,9 million. The interesting figure of salak is that it is

solely concentrated in Sleman area. However, the leading in production quantity is

not salak, it is only less than half of total production of banana in DIY that reach

53,290 tons. The interesting figure with regard to banana is that it widely distributed

among the four regencies. Although the large number of banana tree prevails in

Gunungkidul. From number of tree, banana is the second after salak. The difference

between banana and salak relates to the intensity of cultivation. Salak is cultivated in

intensive mode. Furthermore, it even replaces paddy and converts rice field into

salak orchard. Banana is not prime fruit tree. It is almost rarely being cultivated in

specially treated arable plot. Mango is the third leading fruit in DIY with respect to

number of tree as well as production. It also tends to be distributed to all four

regencies especially with regard to the yield. The larger part of mango tree is in

Gunungkidul (55.3%). However, the productivity of in this regency is lower than

Bantul and Sleman. This makes the production of mango tends to be widely

distributed. As the case of banana, mango is usually cultivated not in intensive sense.

A farmhouse may have two or three mango trees in their yard or orchard,

nevertheless it is rarely cultivated in special plot in sizeable number.

Salak, banana, and mango is the first category of dominant fruit tree in DIY.

The second category between less than 200 and above 100 stems trees encompass

among other papaya (184,971trees), polybemal (170,257 trees) ramboostan (170,151

trees), guava (157,214), and pineapple (156,237 trees). Except of pineapple, these all

trees are usually not being planted in intensive mode in purposely-designated plot

and in large number of tree. This may provide insight that the dominant mode of

production of fruit trees and crops is diversification. This is performed through less

intensive input and 1ow maintenance. The result is that productivity is low.

E. Cropping Combination

The meso level analysis of agricultural development is performed to see the

spatial distribution and cropping pattern in DIY. The unit analysis for this analysis is

village whereas the variable is types of crops including food crops, horticulture, and

plantation crops. As has been discussed in the research method, the analysis is

performed through factor analysis. There are 28 kinds of crops as input for factor

analysis. The result of gradual reduction has extracted four components which are

considered to have correlation to each other. The findings of the spatial variations

indicate that the cropping pattern in DIY can be grouped into four (4) major crops

combination which are then labeled as div-upland food crop cultivation, commercial

community plantation, commercial horticulture and community plantation, and

commercial horticulture. The following table shows component matrix that justifies

this observation.

The spatial distribution of this cropping combination is presented in the sub-sequent

thematic maps (Figure 3 – 6)

1. Dry Upland Food Crops

The first cropping combination that resulted from data processing and

presented in Figure 3 is food crops. To be specific, it is cropping pattern of upland

food crops as opposite to lowland food cropping. The prevalence of the upland food

crop cultivation almost exclusively characterizes the dry up-land Regency of

Gunungkidul. The table shows that among the crops constituting each food crop

category, cassava and upland rice prevail more and correlate more with each other

than with corn. As the name indicates, upland rice is less water demanding mid

therefore suitable for a dry upland area such as Gunungkidul. It is usually planted at

the beginning of rainy season for subsistence purposes. This food crop is not so

important in a commercial sense. Upland rice is seldom to be traded. Larger part of

the yield is to fulfill self-consumption. Only very limited portion, that is the

consumption excess if available is for sale or for barter with other goods. Upland rice

has functions more as domestic goods than commercial goods. The harvest will be

stored for household consumption up to next year’s harvesting period. The role of

domestic goods of rice also concerns with the provision of seedlings for the next

cultivation.

The second typical dry upland boil crops after upland rice is cassava. Table

3.12 shows that cassava and upland rice has strong correlation. In lowland areas,

cassava is not a preferred crop for cultivation because it has some economic and

ecological limitations, such as:

1. It has low commercial value,

2. It competes with other more valuable crop, and

3. It is environmentally considered negative because it decreases soil fertility.

In Gunungkidul Regency, cassava is still considered as one of the crops with

some potential. Formerly it was planted as main staple food for self-subsistence. In

1980’s the green revolution has been successful to generate sufficient rice yield. The

sufficient national level of rice production and the changing food preferences has

removed cassava from being the main dish on the menu of the people in the regency.

Nowadays, cassava is planted for commercial purposes. Although it has a relatively

low commercial value, it has some comparative advantages since it is suited to the

agro-physical characteristics of the regency. Cassava is drought resistant, easy to

grow, demands almost no inputs and treatment, and, therefore, does not require

farmers to spend cash. Nowadays it’s commercial value increases with the opening

opportunity to export to Japan and Taiwan for cattle feeder. The export has then

increased and stabilized the value of cassava. This cassava export channel has

performed important role in protecting farmer’s income to fall due to monetary crisis

in Indonesia in 1998. Another and equally important aspect of Cassava relates to the

provision of vegetables from tile multiple harvested leaves, either for home

consumption or for sale.

2. Commercial Community Plantation

The second cropping combination as presented in table 3.12 consists of

commercial community plantation including coffee, snap beans, cloves, and cocoa.

The distribution of combination of these four crops, as presented in figure 4, seems

to be in opposition with the distribution of the first cropping combination i.e. dry

upland food crops as previously discussed. Considering that distribution of the

upland food crops relates to the unfertile land, then as opposite this second cropping

combination indicates that the distribution of commercial community plantation

covers areas with better land quality. As presented in figure. 4, the distribution of the

crops tends to dominate the upland areas except of calciferous upland Regency of

Gunung Kidul. These among others encompass the western part of DIY stretching

north to south along Menoreh mountain range. It also widely spreads around the

sloping part northern part of DIY on the foot slope of Merapi mountain. The

distribution commercial community plantation tendency along the upland areas differ

from the former upland food crops. The term upland in this case differs with the dry

up-land as discussed in the first cropping combination in the sense that this category

has better land fertility than the first. The crops that belong to this farming

combination, coffee, snap beans, cloves and cocoa, have already indicates that it

demands better land fertility than the first category especially upland rice and

cassava. The figure also shows that the spatial distribution has certain concentration

in the fertile up-land areas of the DIY where the altitude, climate and agro physical

conditions are most suitable.

In Sleman Regency this particular farming combination has a strong

prevalence throughout the districts located at the foot slope of the Merapi Volcano.

These encompass sub-regencies of Turi, Pakem and Cangkringan. These districts,

especially Turi and Pakem, have been discusses formerly to shows dominant

horticulture cultivation. Turi is already well known as horticulture production centre

of salaccias (salak) whereas Pakem is known as producer of horticulture in forms of

vegetables. This indicates that the area where the commercial community plantation

prevail is that the areas that endow not only good land fertility but also good water

availability.

In Kulonprogo Regency, commercial community plantation dominates the

landscape of the Menoreh Hill range encompassing, Girimulyo, Samigaluh,

Kalibawang and Kokap districts. This area is situated in western part of DIY. In

addition, this farming combination also prevails in major parts of Sentolo districts.

Some parts of this district are also characterised with hilly physiography. It might be

assumed therefore that this second cropping pattern prevails in this upland part of the

area. In upland Gunungkidul regency, this farming combination is concentrated in

the northeastern part of the regency i.e. in parts of the districts of Semin, and

Ponjong. The similar characteristic of upland commercial community plantation also

prevails in Bantul Regency in the sense that this cropping dominantly governs the

upper part of the area. This covers districts of Sedayu, and districts of Imogiri,

Dlingo and Piyungan, which are situated in the eastern upland and stretched from the

north to the south.

It is also interesting to note that this community plantation crops also prevail

in some part of lowland area. These are especially in the middle part of the province

and some mart of coastal area. The cultivation of these crops out from the upland

areas indicates the process of spreading and adoption of commodity. The information

collected from resource person in this respect shows that the production and the

productivity in these areas are not as good as the upland production. This is

importantly due to the micro-climate of the lowland mid coastal area is less suitable

to support the yield.

3. Commercial Horticulture and Community Plantation

The third cropping combination as the result of factor analysis consists of

eggplant, chili, and tobacco. According to crops classification of Central Bureau of

Statistics eggplant and chili are in the group of horticulture, whereas tobacco belongs

to community plantation. These crops are generally cultivated for commercial

purposes. Very limited yield portion may be taken for self-consumption. On this

basis, this third cropping combination is labeled as commercial horticulture and

community plantation. From table 3.13 it can be observed that among this cropping

group, eggplant and chili more correlate with each other than with tobacco. Both

crops have a high commercial value, especially their hybrid types. The hybrid type of

eggplant is called with Japanese eggplant whereas the hybrid type of chill is called

hot-beauty chili. Both crops ate one-season horticultures with multiple harvests. The

crops demand significant capital investments and intensive treatment that makes the

mode of cultivation of these crops to be inputs intensive.

Map of figure 5 shows that the spatial distribution of this cropping

combination is more prevail in the middle pail of DIY. Chili, eggplant and tobacco

are dominant in Sleman and Bantul Regencies than other parts of the DIY. As

discussed in chapter three on physiography of DIY, this is fertile area and provided

with availability of water resources for cultivation. In Sleman Regencies, these crops

are concentrated along the line of spring-belt of the Merapi volcanic foot slope where

water flows a whole year round. This cropping combination lies in a less steep part

of the area and below the previously discussed second cropping combination i.e. the

up-land commercial community plantation. In Bantul, these commercial horticulture

and community plantations tend to dominate the eastern part of the area which seems

to cluster along the Opak River. As the case of distribution of the crops in Sleman

Regency, the closeness distribution to river indicates that a year round water

availability and the soil fertility facilitates the crops cultivation.

4. Commercial Horticulture

The fourth cropping combination extracted by principal component analysis

as presented in Table.3.13, refers to combination of shallots and garlic. Both crops

are commercial, being cultivated for gaining income from the yield. On this basis,

the fourth cropping combination is attributed as commercial horticulture. The

distribution of this cropping combination shows different pattern with the first three

cropping combination. The least dominant prevalence is in Sleman Regency i.e the

northern part of DIY toward Merapi Volcano. Sleman regency, therefore, is much in

favour of the second i.e. upland commercial community plantation and the third

cropping combination i.e. commercial horticulture and community plantation. The

relative absence of shallot and garlic in Sleman Regency might be due to humidity of

the area that is insufficient to support these crops to be properly grown.

Like Sleman, the distribution of this fourth cropping takes the area that

different with the second and the third. Cultivation of shallot arid garlic take place in

the middle part of Bantul toward southern direction reaching the coastal area. In fact

the tendency of dominating coastal area may he observed from the distribution of

these commercial horticultures as presented in figure 6. Apart from coastal area of

Bantul, these crops also govern the southern coastal of Kulonprogo Regency. It may

mean that coastal agro-ecosystem seems to facilitates better grown for shallot and

garlic. The discussion on the variation and complexity of farming types has provided

some information that;

1. Although it is taking place in a relatively small and densely populated area,

the DIY agriculture is highly diversified, and

2. In spite of the limited agricultural land resources, the types of dominant

cropping in DIY represent commercial cultivation.

3. Combining the first and second insights, this means that DIY development of

agriculture is driven toward two currently important development orientation

viz agricultural commercialisation and diversification.

F. Agricultural Resources

As far as data availability concern, elements related to agriculture resources

analysis consist of; agricultural land, farmer organizations, agricultural equipment

and technology, and agricultural services and extension. Agricultural land is

specified into variables of size and type of land i.e. irrigated land and two times

harvesting land. The detail variables for equipment covers two wheels tractors,

eradicators, water pumps, and agriculture product processing machines. Agricultural

service and extension consist of variables on village cooperative unit (KUD), agro-

input kiosk, seedling house, demonstration plots, and markets (semi and permanent

markets). The factor analysis on the agricultural resources has explored 19 variables.

With a gradual exclusion of variables having a less significant correlation, the

assumed final combination of agricultural resources combination is 5 variables

divided into 2 component factors as presented in following table.

As shown by the table, there are two groups of factors which have strong

internal correlation. The first combines agricultural equipment with agricultural land

quality, whereas the second combines two agricultural equipments. These two factors

are then labeled as;

1. Wetland agriculture factor

This factor combine three variables with strong correlation, these are percentage

of irrigated land to total agriculture land, percentage of two times harvesting area

to size of wetland, and percentage of two-wheels tractors to agriculture

household

2. Agriculture technology factor

This factor is combination of percentage of eradicator tools to agriculture

household, and percentage of water pumps to agriculture households.

The spatial distribution of the pattern and the combination is presented in the

thematic maps in figure 7 and 8.

1. Wetland Agriculture Factor

Wetland agriculture may represent the quality of land as well as the quality of

irrigation facilities. Such condition may facilitate more than one time production

harvesting. That is why it has strong correlation with the harvesting variables.

Successful agricultural transformation during the green revolution period has been

acknowledged to take place especially in such wetland rice cultivation. Such area is

also considered to be dynamic and adoptive to the introduction of innovation. Hands

tractor is among the agricultural equipment being widely spread in this area.

Therefore, the prevalence of two wheels tractors shows a high correlation with these

two land quality variables. The thematic map in figure 7 indicates that this combined

factor prevails more dominantly in the lowland part of DIY. This area is in the

middle part of the DIY encompassing major part of Regency Sleman and Bantul, and

south eastern part of Kulonprogo Regency. The area stretches out from Merapi

slopes of the northern part of DIY and reaches out southern Bantul coastal area of

Indian Ocean. In the dry up-land of Gunungkidul, this factor is very limited, the only

exception is a small spot around the basin area in district of Karangmojo. This

suggests that modernization and technological advancement is eventually being

applied in lowland fertile and better irrigated which already densely populated areas

than up-land areas.

2. Agriculture Technology

As far as the correlation matrix in table 3.13 concerns, eradicator tools have a

strong relation with water pumps. It shows a negative correlation with irrigated land

resource and most especially with the two wheels tractor. This factor is not widely

distributed nor constitute a compact pattern like the previous factor. However, some

information can be obtained from this finding. This type of agricultural technology

tends to relate with the upland and coastal agriculture than to lowland agriculture.

Observation from thematic map in figure 8 supports this assumptive conclusion. The

lowland area surrounding Yogyakarta Municipality is in clu5ter of low category. The

factor apparently dominates the upland Gunungkidul especially in the middle part,

upper part of Sleman, and also Kulonprogo Regency. It also looks to cluster along

the southern coastal area especially in Kulonprogo and Bantul Regency. In coastal

agriculture in the southern part of the DIY water pumps seem to be important for

drainage purpose so to avoid flooding of the area. In the dry up-lands, water pumps

are importantly present in view of overcoming problems of water scarcity.

From the above discussion on agricultural resources, it appears that the

lowland middle part of DIY is potential agricultural area for it has good quality of

land and supported with better irrigation facility leading to production intensity. It

should be noted that land ownership in this area is already small. Moreover the area

is being situated in a densely populated part of DIY and therefore it has potential to

intensify the agricultural land conversion leading to the decreasing agriculture

production. The shift on the mode of production has already taken place as

observable in the application of hand tractor. It may imply the shift toward more

capital than labour intensive, meaning that labour replacement take place. This

modernization and the more capitalistic type of farming may stimulate to the

changing tenurial system. In General, the technological application varies with the

agro-physical condition and dominant farming type of the region.

5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

Within the smallness of the area, DIY shows great agricultural diversification

and commercialization within prevailing phisiographical variation of the area. This is

shown by spatial pattern of cropping combination. The result of this analysis may be

taken as initial steps to formulate functional zoning for further development. This

may help to identify competitive commodity within specific area. Homogeneity and

the widely spread commodity has resulted in disadvantage due to over-supply during

harvesting season may push down the price for the commodity. There is a tendency

that mass of farmers may adopt and follow to cultivate the pt-oven marketable

commercial crops. Therefore it is important to manage this natural process into

spatially structured commodity area.

Agriculture sector maintains to contribute to economic development equity of

the area through employment absorption but not to economic growth. The index

intensiveness of agriculture in DIY is low that brings it into conventional views as

slow growth sector and contribute low value added. The dynamic of development

process in DIY much prevail in lowland fertile area. ‘The shift of population density

intensely increases in this area more than urban municipal area. It creates

intensifying pressure to agriculture and land conversion. Agriculture in DIY

therefore is also subject to experiencing the law of diminishing return. The yield of

agriculture is going to diminish due to the cultivation area gets smaller and

fragmented. This condition should stimulates to identify possible area for agricultural

extensification and to strengthen the development of upland agriculture where the

land is reasonably available and away from land fragmentation and conversion.

The development in lowland is more dynamic and provides better prosperity

than other area. Considering that agriculture contributes more to employment

opportunity than to economic growth it may means that the source of prosperity in

lowland does not come from agriculture. It is important, therefore, to make micro

level study to clarify the finding at meso regional level.

With regard to the effect of agricultural development in rural socio-economy

welfare, there is objection to the view that social stratification has been more

pronounced in rural area. There is not enough evidence to claim the general tendency

of economic classes polarization due to introduction of agriculture technology, or

increasing deprivation of rural poor as a result of labour displacement from

agriculture. The majority of farm labourer and small farmers has been considered to

make improvement in their economic condition. During the period of 70’s and 80’s,

overall income per capita of rural household experiences meaningful improvement.

This is reflected in the increasing income and expenditure. In general, the income

disparity and discrepancy between socio-economy classes in rural area has been

much lessening.

b. Region Problems

Before monetary crisis in 1998, the Indonesia economic development has

been appreciated as achieving impressive performance. For about 25 years, the

Indonesia economy has annual growth rate above 6%. There are not so many

developing countries that capable to achieve such economic performance and sustain

it for reasonably long period. Considering that the national economic performance is

the aggregate of regional economy, and therefore, the underlying assumption is that

the variation in economic growth may prevail at regional level or even lower level.

Apart from regional hierarchical perspective, sectoral differentiation may also valid

in appraising economic growth. Different economic sectors may also shows different

performance and contribution in economic sectors.

The position of agriculture in development is sometimes miss-

understandable. The economic growth is interpreted to shift agriculture to fade away.

A country or region experiences economic development when the share of

agriculture in income and employment decreases due to being out-competed with

industry and service sectors. In short, there is no country or region being labelled

modern, developed, or industrialized due to its agriculture sector performance.

Economic growth is also mistakenly admitted to inversely effect and sacrifice the

agriculture sector. The frequently mentioned example in this respect deals with

increasing agriculture land loss and the process land conversion to non-agricultural

uses.

The agricultural census data indicates that within 3 18.580 hectare of the DIY

area, wetland rice area covers an area of 63.458 hectares or about 20% of total area.

The agricultural census of 1993 shows that the rice wetland lefts to be 61.497

hectare. On the contrary, dry land which covers land for building and its surrounding

has grown from 83.157 hectare (26.1%) to be 87.475 hectares (27.5%). This means

that, the process of agricultural land conversion to non-agricultural designation has

been taking place in Yogyakarta. The dominant force behind this conversion is to

fulfill the needs of increasing number of population for settlements and its supporting

infrastructures and services facilities. It is assumed that agricultural intensification

may become the visible respond for such increasingly limited land.

More than conversion of agricultural land, the effects of economic growth on

the agricultural production also reach production orientation. The orientation shills

from subsistence toward commercialization. The major drive of this change is due to

increasing product demand and purchasing power as a result of integration of rural

economy into wider market economy. Moreover, the economic growth of 1970’s is

aided by increasing foreign exchange from exporting oil. This period is known and

marked by oil boom. It provided path for toe government to perform investment and

construction of rural infrastructures. Apart from employment absorption, the

construction of rural infrastructures and socio-economic facilities has important

contribution in the integration of rural economy in wider commercial market. At

regency to rural level, and even household unit level, the effect of economic changes

may have different responds and spatial patterns. It is therefore interesting to find-out

such variation of spatial pattern of agricultural changes.

Agriculture is accounted for main income of majority of population residing

in rural area. However the degree of importance is varying between places. Farmer’s

response to agricultural development and commercial market stimulant shows great

variation. It is important to study decision-making process of agricultural changes at

individual farmer and household level. Female has significant role in agricultural

production and changes. In some cases, female farmer and labour spend longer

working hours than male. They contribute important role in agricultural development

and in their household decision making process. In consequence, they may also be

affected for any change in agricultural production. Position and contribution of

female farmers and labourers in agricultural activities and decision-making

The research on me agricultural development becomes more interesting to he

conducted in Yogyakarta. This is due to within its relatively small area as compared

to other provinces in Indonesia. Yogyakarta shows a great variation and complexity

of physical and environment. Moreover, agriculture in this area has existed for long

period and play important role for large proportion of population and for regional

development.

2. Objective of the Study

This study is carried out in the Province of Yogyakarta Special region (DIY).

Among the provinces in Indonesia, the DIY is the smallest i.e. about 3.169 square

kilometers (0.16%?) In spice of the smallness of the DIY, the area is an interesting

one since it is situated between the sea and the active volcanic mountain of Mount

Merapi. Consequently the phisiography of the DIY is varied and leads to different

farming systems. The percentage of population residing in rural areas is 73,4%

among which 48% engages in agricultural activity. The average size of land-

ownership is 0.25 ha per head of household. This size is considered to be under the

standard ownership to keep sustainable productivity, which is assumed to be around

0.4 ha. The DIY is a region displaying a continuum in rural-urban development as

well as different kinds of agro-economic systems. The systems react differently to

the opportunities and constraints created by increasing levels of urbanization, rural-

urban interaction, and population pressure upon resources, as well as to the various

government programs for agricultural development. As such, the DIY might be

perceived as interesting laboratory for what will happen in other densely - populated

areas in the shadow of growing urban economies.

On the basis of this background, the main objective of the research is to

understand the varying pattern of agricultural development in the DIY, and the effect

of the development on the rural firm households livelihood and rural areas at large.

The specification of this main research objective helps to clarify the scale and scope

of the research. The operational breakdown of the main objective is as follow:

1. to formulate and to explain the spatial pattern and regional topology according to

agricultural characteristic,

2. to assess the main production structure and processes in the different farming

types and to explain the various effects of agricultural dynamics and outcome on

the living conditions of population

3. to explain the variation of farmer responses and decision making process to

opportunity and stimulants for agricultural change and innovation.

4. to appraise the role of supporting services and infrastructures in agriculture and

the role of government policy and intervention in rural agricultural development

5. to analyze resistance and vulnerability of farm household livelihood in coping

with crisis and gradual change.

3. Research Questions

The discussions on the research background, and research objectives, have

provided basis for the formulation of research question. This research question may

function as guiding question to formulate research methods. The main research

objective is to focus on what varying pattern and the structure agricultural

development in the DIY, and the impact of the development on the rural farm

households livelihood and rural areas at large. This main objective is then specified

into more operational research questions as follows;

1. What patterns of the agricultural cropping can be identified and how this pattern

is distributed at meso level of DIY Province and at four different agro-ecosystem

areas?

2. What are variation on the main production structure and processes in the

different agro ecosystems types and how the effects of the different agricultural

dynamics and outcome on the living conditions of respective rural community?

3. What are the variation of farmer responses to opportunity and stimulants for

agricultural change, and how the process of making decision to adopt any

induced innovation?

4. What is the role of supporting services and infrastructures in agriculture and

what has been the role of government policy and intervention in rural

agricultural development?

5. What are the impacts of crisis as sudden pressure of changes on different fanning

activities and different household category, and how they show varying degree

of adaptability resistance and vulnerability in coping with crisis and gradual

change?

4. Justification for the Usefulness of the Research

The formal usefulness of the research is the basis for the writing of

dissertation as part of the requirements to acquire PhD degree at the Post Graduate

Program Gadjah Mada University Yogyakarta. The practical usefulness of the

research result is to contribute to the scientific development and the development of

community at large. Contribution to science is especially in the field of agricultural

and rural development. The assessment of the spatial pattern of agricultural

development may reflect the integration of rural area into wider market as well as the

changing market preferences that leads to agricultural commercialisation. The micro

level study on and farm household respond to agricultural change and development

and decision-making process may contribute to approach and theoretical conception

about agricultural development. Moreover, the contribution may come from

methodological aspect of the research as well as the empirical findings. Comparing

four villages located in different agro-ecosystems setting may provide more

comprehensive views than focusing on one research area. The research may also

provide useful source for comparative study in the same field. Furthermore it may

work as stimulant and inspiration for thither research in the similar and related

subject. For the community at large, the research may provide advantage through

government institution that responsible from development planning and

implementation, this is especially related with better and wider understanding on the

effect of agricultural change and development on the farm household livelihood.

C. Theoretical Views

1. Agricultural Development

One universally recognized feature of structural economic change is that as

countries develop, the proportions of GDP and employment accounted for by

agriculture decline. This shift stands to reason, for improved living standards entail a

change in consumer demands through an increasing personal consumption of good

and services other than food. A concomitant rise is necessitated in the proportion of

human aid other resources allocated to non-agricultural production. This economic

transformation indicates a change in the relative importance of the different

economic sectors i.e. the shill from predominantly agricultural economics to one

dominated by the industrial sector and the service sector with related to sectoral

shifts in income or labour force (Bilsborrow and Georges, 1994; Stevens and Jabara,

1988).

In the development process of a country, agriculture plays a major role.

According to Kuznets (as quoted by Colman and Nixon, I 978: 32), the contribution

or agriculture to development covers aspects of product contribution, factor

contribution, and market contribution. Product contribution refers to condition

whereby an increasing amount of food is supplied to the expanding non-agricultural

population, and industrial crops are produced as a basis for processing industry.

Factor contribution means that agriculture supplies the rest of the economy with

labour and experiences a net outflow of capital. Market contribution’ is that whereby

agricultural revenue from cash sales (domestically and for exports) creates a demand

for products of the industrial sector, agricultural exports also create a flow of foreign

exchange which can be used to purchase capital items from abroad.

These contributions imply that a large and increasing domestically produced

agricultural surplus is a necessary condition for successful and interlinked economic

development. Agriculture thus is an important precondition for national

development. The currently rich countries were favoured with accesses to ample and

cheap food supplies during the 18th and 19th centuries at the start of industrialization

(Colman and Nixon, 1978). In this respect, it is the existence of a relatively

homogeneous agricultural structure in the initial stages of industrialisation process

that facilitates the spread of technological progress and makes possible growth with

equity. (Schejtman, 1994)

2. Approaches to Agricultural Change

Agriculture can be studied in a number of ways, and even the simplest farm

comprises a large number of components and types of relations among them. Social

sciences concentrates on the components of the human sub-system, for instance cm

the rules that govern resource use (e.g. land tenure), on labour intensity and

availability, on human demography, on communication and diffusion of innovation,

on the relation between social and economic units, on consumption variables, on

decision making, and on links between these features and the environmental

subsystems (Brush and Turner. H, 1987).

The term of agrarian change implies a change in the total system of

relationships with respect to agrarian economics and societies. This system includes

technological and environmental factors relationships as well as social and cultural

ones, and a wide range of processes affect such systems and may contribute to

bringing about changes within them. The agrarian system is considered to be more

than a farming system, which denotes a more restricted set of technical factors and

relationships (Harris, 1982).

Agricultural change can be defined along two broad axes: technological and

structural. Technological change can be observed in many ways, in terms of the types

and amounts used, management practices, productivity, and efficiency.

Intensification is often used to describe technological change involving greater use of

labour or other inputs per unit of land. Structural change involves changing social

and economic relations in the production process, for instance in land ownership and

tenure and in the relation between labour and capital (Brush and Turner. 11l, 1987).

As part of a system, agrarian change cannot be defined by agriculture alone.

The majority of rural households combine several sources of income both in

agriculture and non-agricultural activities. Therefore, satisfactory treatment of

interaction between the two activities is important. Saith (1992) has formulated

stages of non-farm economic developments in relation to farmer categories according

to degree of landownership. In the first phase, both agricultural wage employment

and self-employment are important to the poor farmer, but not to the rich farmer. The

farm employment pattern shows an inverse relationship. In the second phase, due to

processes of monetization, technological change, and economic growth, the

importance of wage employment is increasing to poor farmers but self-employment

is still highly important. For the rich farmers self-employment is also getting more

important, hut it is performed by investment of agricultural surplus. The farm

employment pattern changes into a U type. In the third phase, due to exposure to

urban competition, agricultural wage employment for the poor farmer is intensified.

Self-employment for poor farmers is eroded progressively while for rich farmer it is

still important. In this stage, the emerging farm employment pattern is positive. In fix

fourth phase, due to competition from the modern farm sector, self-employment for

the rich farmers begins also to erode, whereas agricultural wage employment shows

tendency towards an inverse relationship. In the final phase, agricultural wage

employment no longer is important and the poor tend to complete leave out, whereas

income from self-employment for the rich is substituted by income in form of

remittances from household members.

Approaches to the study of agrarian change might be distinguished broadly

into system approaches, decision-making models, and structural/ historical

approaches. Systems approaches are emphasizing the systemic relationships of

environmental, technological, and demographic conditions within the farming

system, as well as the social responses to them. Decision-making model studies of

farm economics in the neo-classical mould are concerned with the allocation of

resources on the farm and with the farmers responses to markets and to innovations.

These kinds of social science studies have become quite good at explaining ‘the

success or failure of the individual within the system but in this case the system itself

is left out of the analysis. The structural/ historical approaches are concerned with:

1. Inter-relationships of people and the natural environment,

2. Relationships of people in the process of production in the sense that it places

the ownership and control of resources at the centre of analysis, and

3. Relationships between expanding capitalism and various forms of production

which, on the face of things at least, might be described as ‘non’ or ‘pre-

capitalist’ (Harris, 1982).

Historical experience suggests that seen in a long-term perspective economic

growth has been accompanied by specialization, centralisation, maximisation,

urbanisation and industrialisation. (Lea and Chaudry, 1983). In line with the

development process of the country and the integration of rural areas into wider

markets, agricultural commercialisation is an unavoidable process.

Three major points of view maybe distinguished in the role of agricultural

commercialisation in the process of development;

1. An economic-technocratic view point, emphasizing economic and technical

measures as instrumental in increasing agriculture productivity and production

for the market,

2. The ‘psychological variant of the first, which pays specific attention to the

individual characteristics of farmers, to theft attitudes and motivations.

Behavioural factors are seen as barriers to or channels for the diffusion and

adaptations of innovations. In both views, commercialisation is used more or

less as synonymous for modernisation and development, and

3. The ‘politico-economic’ point of view on the commercialisation of agriculture

takes into account the political context of the nature of power relationships at

various geographical scales. Agriculture is regarded as a factor contributing to

development when accompanied or preceded by structural change at various

geographical scales (Hinderink and Sterkenhurg. 1987).

There are also different views on the impacts of the process of

commercialisation and commoditisation of agriculture (Baths, l982. There are those

in favour of the view that with increasing commoditisation and commercialisation in

agrarian societies, a process is set in motion whereby rural producers are set apart

into distinct classes. Another view states that although development of commodity

production is not unimportant the distinctive peasant economy, that of small

producers persists as they are not yet separated from their means of production and

retain a degree of control over land and family labour, survive.

The view that technology and commercialisation play a major role in

stimulating agricultural growth and alleviating poverty is now widely accepted.

Many regions in the developing world that produce commercial crops for domestic

and for export markets are better off than regions that are under subsistence

production. But there is also a tenacious tradition of pessimism about technology and

commercialisation, whose adherents claim that both of these movements may bring

adverse consequences for the poorest (Binswanger and Braun, 1991).

In a modernization approach to agricultural development, progressive

(usually large owners) tanners play important role. This assumes a top down

development in which progressive farmers are approached (extension services

provision and offered facilities/ inputs to adopt new technologies, crops and

marketing systems). It is assumed that the agricultural innovations will be diffused

from the progressive or big farmers to the traditional or smaller farmers and from the

more favoured area to backward areas. Diffusion and trickling down effects,

therefore, are essential elements in the adoption process of the innovations. In

Indonesia (Hardjono, 1983), the success of the rice intensification programme has

been attained through government patronage of large-owners, many of whom are not

themselves farmers.

Political-economic approach to agricultural development focuses on the mode

of production characteristics of agriculture i.e. the role of dominant social relations

of productions including the political power structure. The progressive incorporation

of the rural economics into the world market system is deeply affecting these

relationships in the rural communities. Agricultural commercialisation may lead both

to processes of ‘peasantisation’ and ‘depeasantisation’. The former process involves

only a partial transformation of subsistence agriculture into a market oriented

agriculture. Characteristic of the peasant mode of production (small operated farms,

use of unpaid Family labour, production type mainly for own household

consumption, self exploitation of labour) are persisting. The main reason for this

being that the small marginal Farmers can not afford the means and the risk of

complete forms of commercial farming, while at the same time their low but cheap

surplus production, is an indispensable contribution to the national food supply

because of their sheer numbers. The peasant economy thus is an integral part of the

national economy supplementing the capitalist sector. On the other hand, a process of

de-peasantisation may prevail among the richer farmers, mainly producing cash

crops for the domestics or export markets. Here the use of capital inputs and new

varieties/ crops is ubiquitous while, at the same time, the process of

commercialisation is inducing a more businesslike attitude towards agricultural

production. New properly relations are coming into existence while traditional land

and labour sharing mechanisms are being eroded. The rising capitalist mode of

production leads to an increasing rural differentiation through alienation of land and

the expulsion of labour from the modernising agriculture sector (Hail, 1989;

Hinderink and Sterkenburg. 1987; Long, 1984; Ruthenberg, 1980.) In spite of the

development of capitalist agriculture, tendencies towards the polarisation of peasant

society may be weakened. This is because of factors such as; the break-up of large

units at inheritance, and the reproduction of small-scale holdings by the intervention

of merchant and moneylenders capital, or in the more recent past of state capital.

3. Factors of Agricultural Change

The changes in agriculture encompass among others; land tenurial and

structural characteristic of agriculture, technology and farming methods, and rate of

growth of total output (Bayliss and Wanmali, 1984). Sharecropping is a form of land

tenancy with the payment for the use of land (the rent) as a percentage of the total

physical output obtained in the crop season, and, therefore, the amount of rent varies

with the level of harvest (Ellis, 1988). This tenancy arrangement tends to be shifted

to a cash mode of payment for tenancy. With increasing levels of commercialization

the tendency of land concentration will be one of the reason for the shift in the mode

of tenancy. According to Stevens and Jabara (1988) with respect to the relation of the

size of land and productivity, it is supposed that in agriculture there are intrinsic

diseconomies of scale/ size. While economies of scale are usually accompanied by

increases in output per twit of input due to enlarging the size of the farm or business,

in agriculture an increasing farm size usually is associated with decreasing land

productivity. This relationship, according to Johnson and Ruttan (1994), used to be

widely accepted, particularly as a justification for land reform. Several important

questions remain unanswered, however, particu1arl concerning land quality

differences between small and large farms, differing factor proportions, labour

productivity, and institutional disincentives to investments by large-scale farmers.

Land tenure combines two types of rules: control and access. Control implies

durable rights to use land, as expressed in the ownership in the European tradition.

Rules of control are held originally by the social group and delegated to families,

households, or individuals. Control means that the holder of the right is permitted to

use the land in manner approved by the group. Even though control may ultimately

be vested with the group, many societies recognize that individuals or households

have de facto control over land. Control may be loaned, sold, rented and passed to

others, although most societies regulate these passages. Rules of access concern how

control is exercised. They are important in translating land control into land use.

Access implies temporary rather than durable (Brush and Turner, 1987).

The changes in technology and farming methods have some consequences in

social, economic and physical conditions of rural areas. In fact technology is neutral,

as stated by (Koppel and Oasa, 1987) it does not favour anyone in any consistent

social, political, or economic sense. Technology only favours rational resource

allocation. Technology is accepted and used because it is economically appropriate.

If new agricultural technology is ever socially unfavourable, an assessment should be

made on the policy environment that is preventing a ‘normal’ adaptive evolution of

rural social and economic institutions to proceed.

The new agricultural technology though theoretically scale neutral, was not in

practice ‘resource neutral’, because most of the advantages accruing to richer

cultivators. Byres (1985 as quoted by Harris, 1992) pointed out that the process of

change might aptly be described as one of partial proletarianisation, given that the

evidence strongly suggests an increasing dependence upon wage labour and the loss

by poor peasants of an increasing share of the operated area to rich peasants, though

without them necessarily losing the ownership of the land. The technical changes are

concerned with the adaptation of the production to the changing circumstances,

pressures, and opportunities, which confront the farm household. They are a

reflection of the adoption of new or different methods of production (Ellis, 1987).

Changes in agriculture are strongly influenced by innovations in technology and

firming methods that lead to an increasing production. According to Binswanger and

Braun (1991) when a new technology, such as Green Revolution variety, is being

introduced into a region, higher farm profits initially accrue to all producers who

adopt it, including poor farmers. Therefore, the complementarities between yield

increasing technological change in staple foods and commercialisation of agriculture

can be exploited to help alleviate poverty.

Adoption of innovation is seen to be variable as well. According to

Eijkemans (1995) the existence of ‘incremental analysis’ explains why peasants

seldom adopt all components of a so-called ‘integrated technology package’ all at

once on a voluntary basis, as they were expected to do when they were offered ‘the

green revolution programme’. Diffusion and adoption of innovations are

determinative in this case. There are several problems with regard to the diffusion of

innovations. The Line duration taken is important because the diffusion is based on

observations from farmer to farmer. More time is needed for innovations to reach

remote areas. To stimulate the adoption, prove of the gain of new methods is needed.

Extension services are not only expensive but according to Stevens and Jabara

(1988) they usually leads to little increase in production. Apart from these problems,

there are constraints of adoption of innovation due to the fact that not all farming

methods are suitable for all regions (Bayliss and Wanmali, 1984).

Technical change in agriculture according to Hayami and Ruttan (as quoted

by Koppel and Oasa, 1987) is essentially endogenous (mid hence should be

incorporated into an economic explanation of agricultural development): changing

factor prices and their indirect effects through a variety of forces (such as population

growth, variation in land quality, physical remoteness) create opportunities for

technologically improving factor productivity. A broad effect of technical change is

that it integrates agricultural production more closely into the market economy, and

hastens the demise of the peasant status. Whether agricultural commercialisation also

means polarisation into distinct rural social classes depends on a number of other

factors than technology alone (Ellis, 1988). Agricultural commercialisation implies

an increasing monetization and market orientation of agricultural production. It

affects productivity and growth of output, and stimulates specialization and

diversification. (Hinderink and Sterkenburg, 1987).

The size, density, structure, and change of populations are major topics in

understanding fanning systems. In subsistence agriculture (consumption-production)

the amount of production sought, and hence the land and labour employed is strongly

related to local demographic conditions. In commercial or market agriculture

(commodity-production) local demographic conditions may not directly affect

production goals, but they may play important roles in crop scheduling, selection of

cultivars, and so forth. Because of this, the relationships between population change

and agricultural change have been crucial topics in studies of fanning systems,

particularly in the underdeveloped world (Brush and Turner II, 1987, Bilsborrow and

Geores, 1994). With regard to agricultural output, there are various methods to

measure changing rates of growth of total output. Measuring the input-output index

indicates the efficiency. The indexes on partial factor of productivity cover labour

productivity (i.e. changes in total output in relation to changes in total labour input),

and land productivity growth (i.e. changes in total output per hectare of agricultural

land which is commonly applied for major food crop). The more general measure is

total food output in relation to total population. The application of the indexes

measuring productivity should consider data availability, fluctuativeness and

seasonality characteristics of farming, and (changing in) cropping pattern.

4. Agricultural Growth Linkages

The role of agriculture in economic development can be referred to as

comprising back-ward and forward contributions to other economic sectors. As

mentioned by the World Bank (1990), the development of agriculture may provide

the opportunity for efficient development of the entire commodity system, from input

production and marketing to downstream processing, thus fostering both vertical and

horizontal diversification with extensive backward and forward linkages between

production, processing, and marketing. Within these linkages, the demand/ income

linkage also plays an important role. The growth iii income generated by agriculture

means a higher purchasing power of rural inhabitants. The increasing purchasing

power will not only stimulate further diversification of agricultural production, but

also the development of oilier economic sectors. Income linkages are also understood

as the capability of agriculture to generate cash from marketing to other regions or

even export elsewhere, and presupposedly strengthens the local-capital investment.

The theory of multiplier effects of agriculture within a rural economy describes the

effects on net-farm incomes and agricultural outputs, and on generating non-farm

income, and thereby reducing rural poverty. However, this theory of functional

growth linkages is still in question due to the limited evidences, among others, on

whether agricultural growth goes along with increasing demand, whether production

or consumption linkages are contributing most to production or consumption, and

whether cross-investment from agriculture to the non-farm sector does really take

place (Dunham, 1991).

5. The Peasant Farmer

In many poor countries a relatively small number of large or modern

agricultural holdings, which provide a large proportion of the market output, exist

alongside a vastly larger number of subsistence or peasant holdings. The primary

activity of the peasant farmer is producing basic foods for his own household

consumption, with surplus land and resources devoted to producing crops and

livestock products for sale (Colman and Nixon. 1978, 138). The dual orientation of

peasant production for consumption and for sale is a major concern and is

emphasized in all agricultural development studies. With regard to farm inputs.

peasants use their own unpaid family labour, although the hiring and selling out of

labour power is also quite possible and compatible with peasant society. Peasant

commodity production is also characterised by the use of simple technology (Harris,

1982; Hinderink and Sterkenburg,1987).

According to Ellis (1988) peasant farming can he described as agricultural

production by farm households with access to their own means of livelihood in land,

utilising mainly family labour in farm production, and that is always part of a larger

economic system, but is fundamentally characterized by partial engagements in

markets, which tend to unction with a high degree of imperfection. Peasants may also

be described as an apart society’ defined by their sub-ordinate relationships to

external markets, the state and dominant culture. The peasantry is sub-ordinated to

other classes within the state and may be required to yield some tribute to them.

The poor are usually well integrated in the rural labour market: whether hired

workers or small farmers, they participate in the exchange economy and, despite the

high share of income allocated to food, their cropping patterns and crop-livestock

mixes show large involvement in markets. This fact is important for the spreading of

effects of commercialisation and technology in the economy (Binswanger and Braun.

1991). In fact, peasant villages, both open and closed, are always connected with

larger, regional forms of social orgnisation. These include economic forms, such as

market systems, and political forms, such as nation states (Brush and Turner II.

1987). According to Ellis (1988) peasant farmers as social group are part of larger

economic systems. Peasant production is therefore exposed in some degree to market

forces and the input-output production elements are subject to valuation by wider

markets.

In the national development process, the existence of a peasant mode of

production is considered differently by different views. In the conservative ‘old-

orthodoxy’ view, until 1960, the peasant is a passive victim of external forces, and

large scale, mechanized agriculture is a prerequisite for agricultural modernisation.

The ‘Neo-classical’ view is also still in favour of large scale farmers and its main

concern is still with economic growth, efficiency and adaptations to markets. The

important issue in this view is that agriculture is the foundation for overall

development. The ‘New orthodoxy’ sees peasants as profit-maximising producers

having willingness and ability to manipulate and exploit forces if given the

possibility to do so. In the ‘new orthodoxy’ view, the small farm could offer an

efficient and equitable basis for agricultural development. In the political’ view,

peasants are seen as always sub-ordinated by state or by large farmers in the

development process (Johnson. 1991; Ellis, 1988; Beny. 1993). It is important to be

noted, however, that peasant posses a certain degree of independent control over the

resources and the equipment that they use in production. Peasant society is not

homogeneous and may be marked by quite considerable inequalities.

6. Farmer’s Decision Making

In confrontation with the larger system, farmers make changes and

adaptations. According to Eijkemans, (1995) there are several factors that structure

the farmer decisions, namely the bio-physical environment and the contextual

constraints. The bio-physical environment encompasses the environmental

conditions important for land use; soil, climatological, morphology, hydrological,

and biological conditions i.e. aspects vital toward the well functioning of land-

holdings; productivity, stability, and suitability. The contextual constraints on

farmers decisions, encompass: decisions within the individual farmers effective

reach, and decisions outside the farmers scope (use of common resources, land

ownership, cost of resources and products). Mostly government has created these

conditions; the construction of good infrastructure, price stabilisation (this includes

input-output), agricultural extension, provision of credit facilities, regreening,

reforestation projects etc.

In most cases, large farmers devote a larger share of their land to cash crops

than small farmers. This may be due to the following causes (Fafchamps 1996); (1)

The presence of credit constraints, limited capital re-investment, technological

differences giving advantage to large scale farming, and differentials in relative

factor costs across firms. In short differences between crops in factor intensity, (2)

different ability of farmers to sustain risks with respect to crop choices and cropping

patterns, and (3) third world farmers often have to be self sufficient in basic staples

so that farmers allocate land to cash crops provided that their food security is

guaranteed.

For most farmers, farm capital availability, inadequate credit, and poor

technology are seen as the principal constraints to improve productivity and are a

serious constraint to price responsiveness (Riedinger, 1994). Limited farmer

knowledge and access to technical information also slow the pace of response to

market incentives. Various constraints -land tenure, farm capital, farmer knowledge,

perceived risk and uncertainty, and (in the poor areas) agro-climate, limit the

capacity of farmers to respond rapidly to changing market signals. For example, due

to the uneven distribution and insufficiency of land to provide a living for their

family, smallholders tend to rent more land or to rent out the land if they find work

elsewhere.

Farmer’s response, as appraised by Cederroth (1995), to the speed of

changing agriculture development methods are diverse. There are rapidly

diminishing (but still large group) of traditional farmers who are skeptical of

innovation and continue their traditional farming methods. There are modern,

capitalistic minded farmers. There are groups of landowners who have handed over

responsibilities to other people/ caretakers. In view of such situation, government

intervention should smooth the process of technological introduction. The

government’s role is to ensure that the policy environment minimizes price distortion

and that the public goods needed by agriculture are made available. According to

Hayami and Ruttan (as quoted by Koppel and Oasa, 1987) the government can:

1. make vigorous efforts to ensure that appropriate technology is generated and is

made widely available

2. redirect windfall profit streams to investment in agricultural infrastructure

through appropriate tax policy, and,

3. in principle, make compensatory payments to those who are technologically

displaced with regard to factor prices, agricultural factors will be allocated

efficiently because they are priced correctly.

In Javanese agriculture, White (1991) distinguished different household

strategies in agricultural development i.e.

1. a dynamic strategy of accumulation by large farmer or landowner households in

which surpluses from one activity are used to gain access to higher incomes in

another one (both agricultural and non-agricultural),

2. a strategy of consolidation by the middle group of small farm households which

first of all is geared towards security its own food supply,

3. a strategy of sheer survival by the sub-marginal farmers and landless

households, which drives them to accept any activity without capital investment

and consequently with very low returns.

Farm household from different socio-economy strata and among different

agricultural ecosystem may show different response to stimulant for agricultural

changes. In the recent developments, the potential changes may take shape in the

combined form of agricultural diversification and commercialisation. The farmer

responses to agricultural development may be differentiated as follows;

1. The non-response, in which farmers proceeds their agricultural activity in

traditional way. There is no distinct difference with the previous generations and

any introduced innovation is neglected.

2. The growth response, in which the farmers adopt agricultural modernisation that

lead to land intensification, increasing productivity, increasing diversification,

etc.

3. The satisfier response, in which agricultural land no longer been functions in an

optimal sense and does no longer function as a major source of income

compared to non-farm income.

4. The withdrawal response, in which agricultural work and land are no longer

attractive. Some sell the land, rent the land out, or leave the land fallow.

7. Rural Livelihoods

In their daily life, rural farm household may confront with external

environment potential to change their livelihoods. There are seasonal shifts, trends,

and even shocks that may have direct impact to farm household to different, scale

and intensity (DFID.1995). Seasonal shifts do not only concern with wet to dry

nature season, but also with prices, inputs availability and production. Trends are

more gradual and predictable, for instance population trend, and resource trend.

Shocks are more sudden and unpredictable. Usually it takes shorter period although

the impact may be much longer and multiplied. It ranges from natural hazard; flood

and storm, humanitarian conflict, and also economic shock like monetary crisis.

A livelihood is more than merely synonymous with income. Its dictionary

definition is a ‘means of a living’, which straightaway makes it direct attention is to

the way in which living is obtained. A livelihood comprises assets (natural, physical,

human, financial and social capital) the activities, and access to these (mediated by

institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained b the

individual or household. (Ellis, 2000). Rural livelihood holds distinct character to

urban livelihood. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from

stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not

undermining the natural resource base.

Monetary crisis in 1998 is a great example of external factor affecting rural

livelihood. It has become major attention for those who concern with rural

livelihood. The finding of Burger (2004) indicates that the existence of strong

redistributive mechanisms and the planting of low external input types of rice

varieties, still allowed people to survive once price started to fall due to monetary

crisis. This finding is based on his study of agricultural practices around the buffer-

zone of the Kerinci Seblat National Park, Kerinci Regency, Sumatera. The

redistributive mechanism has been for long time become social-economy support

system in the traditional community. However, the mechanism increasingly restricted

only to heirs, or to friends, and to co-villagers. The access to field is also restricted

only to rice field which is mandated to be rotated by social system (sawah giliran

system). Outsiders and migrants, therefore, became increasingly excluded from these

fall-back mechanism. In line with the study in upland East Java (Noteboom. 2003), it

also stresses, however, that those with effective social network were better able to

cope with crisis than those who had not. The concept of borrowing (pinjam) of land

for cultivation for both the rice fields and upland fields was developed as coping

mechanism for those in needs. Solidarity mechanism of borrowing under conditions

of increasing land shortages has caused, borrowing arrangements to change into

renting, especially once annual crops began producing saleable surplus. Another

redistributional character is also based on kinship, which oilers temporary access to a

rice- field in line with Adat Minangkabau. This has always been an effective way of

managing wet rice land in a sustainable way. Sharecropping in upland areas had also

been part of (adat) regulations as another sharing mechanism. This is in line with

progressing commercialization and decreasing options for obtaining food security

through on-farm wet rice cultivation. Efforts to stabilize livelihoods were

increasingly geared towards upland areas.

The above Burger’s research finding s the answer of the research question on

indigenous resource use strategies under conditions of increasing pressures upon

local resources and livelihood system. Using rapid rural appraisal method and semi

structured interview with 330 respondent randomly selected the research also try to

answer question on what response mechanisms can be identified in resource use

strategies during the economic crisis and characteristic of the household can be

attributed as winners or loser due to economic crisis. It is found that the advancing

process of commercialization arid integration into wider national and international

political, social, and economic systems has already transformed livelihoods from a

mainly subsistence-oriented system of wet rice cultivation into an integrated system

of mixed food crops and cash crops agriculture. In the era of globalization, externally

induced stresses and shocks continue to impinge on livelihoods of particularly the

rural poor. Better of households however, remain rooted in the villages, as they

appear to engage in all kinds of higher quality non-farm and off-farm employment

opportunities. Investment are usually aimed at the acquisition of land and standing

stocks of cinnamon trees for the purpose of accumulating wealth, or at annual crop

cultivation for quick yields. Source of investment is also taken from migration

process. Labour migration and remittances are limited to the head if the household,

usually in connection with savings for buying land.

Titus (2005) also stresses the importance of social network in sustaining

livelihood of farm household in Parigi Village, of Gowa Regency, Sulawesi. The

research was carried out at two levels, i.e. the community level, and the household or

enterprise level. The data collection is performed through participatory rural

appraisal, interview, and in-depth interview. Parigi is an upland village. The village

economy is dominated by agricultural activities which can be categorized into three

major systems, i.e. wet-rice (sawah) cultivation, thy upland cultivation of food crops

(tegalan), and dry upland cultivation of perennial cash crops (kebun campuran).

Tegalan farmers have fewer opportunities for switching to other type types of

farming or accumulate reserves for bad years than the more productive sawah or

kebun. Dominant type of resource use, in this case, determines the scope of facing

problems in cultivation. The second important means to respond to crisis is assets

and capacities to use the resources. The better-off farm households have an initial

advantage over survival households in using their surpluses and potentials to switch

to other crops or activities, to more rewarding types of nonfarm employment, or

simply to shift the burden of the crisis on to their debtors, tenants, and farm workers.

In Parigi, the underprivileged farm households take typical response to crisis by

reducing the use of capita/ inputs in agriculture and retreat into subsistence food crop

farming. In flying to compensate income losses in agriculture they might try to look

for additional incomes from marginal types of non-farm employment. The general

tendency is that the negative impacts of the recent crisis n the village economy of

Parigi have remained limited and have only been severe for the survival households.

Most of the village households were still more or less self-sufficient in food

production and consequently were relatively resilient to crisis impacts on food prices.

Similar to Burger’s finding in Kerinci, Sumatera, the system of mutual help and

sharing in Parigi seems to come under increasing stress due to the advancing process

of commercialization, mid increasing social differentiation and inequality. On the

other hand the crisis has contributed to acceleration of the erosion of traditional

gender role in the division of labour. Female household members will have more

opportunities to participate in (off-farm) economic activities.

Similar to approach to livelihood study in Parigi, the division of land use is

also employed by Eijkemans (1995) on Peasant Decision Making on Land Use in

North Sumatera. The division according to dominant fanning types (irrigated versus

dry-land agriculture systems) is considered to be more appropriate than traditional

division. Irrigated agriculture systems encompass rain-fed, semi technical, and

technical irrigation whereas dry-land system refers to non paddy field i.e. annual

crops farming (tegalan), agro-forestry (kebonan and pekarangan) and pasture

farming (alang-alang, grass fields). Peasant is considered to be able gradually to size

up and adapt to any management problems and risk, and to determine the conflict

with the input demands of existing activities. According to Eijkemans there is no

stagnant farmers. As economic maximizers, peasant would do their utmost to reach

maximum economic returns from their input but constrained by social value,

biophysical environment and incomplete package practitioners or contextual factors

such as irrigation and drainage, fertilization, pesticides, and terracing.

The discussion indicates that rural livelihood study should move into

direction to stimulate the betterment of outcome in the process of change and

adaptation to external factors. The outcome may be identified in term of more

income, increasing well-being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security, and

more sustainable use of the natural

D. Theoretical Framework

The review of theories in preceding sub-chapter provides insight for

theoretical Framework of this research. As indicated by the following flow-chart,

there are four main elements which constitutes the research on agricultural change

and development i.e.

1. The Background Setting

Geographic studies concern with interaction and interdependence of elements

in places and spaces to compose certain ecosystem. It is therefore, this study

proceeds through a stepwise method from meso to micro level analysis and starts

with constructing spatial variation of cropping combination. Agricultural ecosystems

or agro ecosystems is a complex system of interacting biotic and abiotic elements

performing certain functions and processes such as primary production,

consumption, and decomposition resulting in energy flow and nutrient cycling. The

agro ecosystem is further characterized by a hierarchy of integrated system (e.g.

farms within communities, within watersheds, within regions and so forth) composed

of interconnected and interrelated biophysical elements (soil, water, air, climatic

resources. plants and animals), and socioeconomic elements (social, cultural,

economic, institutional and political concerns). The interactions among these

elements determine the properties of the agro ecosystem.

The four different agro-ecosystems have been selected in this research.

1. Commercial horticulture of snake fruit (salak) in volcanic slope located in

Wonokerto Village of Sleman Regency. This is fertile area and gets benefit from

irrigation, water availability, and accessibility,

2. Upland agriculture of calciferous southern hill range of Gunungsewu which is

represented by Giriasih Village in Gunungkidul Regency, The dominant form of

cultivation is mix cropping of subsistence food-crops, and forest and perennial

trees. Giriasih Village in Gunungkidul Regency is a dry up-land area with low

fertility and very limited surface water availability. It is a rain-fed up-land agro-

ecosystems with low infrastructure and low accessibility.

3. Upland agro-ecosysterns of Menoreh hill range in western part of DIY which is

represented by Sidoharjo village. The mix cropping in Sidoharjo Village of

Kulonprogo Regency consists of food crops, commercial horticulture (chili), and

commercial plantation crops (coffee, clove, and vanilla). It has reasonable

surface water with reasonable land fertility as compare to Upland Gunungkidul.

Although hilly area, and in a distance to economic centre of Kulonprogo town.

Sidoharjo has good asphalt road connection.

4. Coastal lowland agriculture in southern part of DIY. The cultivation is focused

on commercial horticulture crops of chili and shallot, and rice. Tirtohargo is

water rich and fertile area, and enjoys good infrastructure and accessibility.

The background setting, in this framework, refers to elements potential to

determine the agricultural practices and orientation. These background-setting

elements comprises; characteristics of the farmer i.e. the head of the household,

characteristics of the household, assets and resources, and government intervention

factors. Among these four elements it is assumed that farmer characteristics are

among the strongest elements in determining agricultural practice and performance.

Farmer may he regarded as decision maker at its own scale. Whether to change or to

stay the same, it depends much on farmer decision. The pattern of decision can be

accessed from socio-demography and socio-economic condition of the farmer.

Farmer’s age, for instance, may influence agricultural performance in the sense that

the younger the age, there is a greater tendency to adopt innovation and more

advance mode of production if compared with old generation. The essential

assumption is that younger age tends to have greater media exposure than the old

generation. Although not as important as personal characteristic of farmer as decision

maker, there are other elements that are supposed to have important contribution in

the process of agricultural development. These elements include the household

condition, assets and resources, and development intervention. The household

condition may provide resource for farm operation either in the form of, for instance,

human resources especially family labour and capital resources,

2. The Process and the Change

The implementation of the choice on agricultural activities appears and may

be observable in two main features. The first relates to non-crop material aspect,

which is, knows as production structure or line of production process. The second

relates to crops non-production value aspect. The aspect of production structure or

line of production comprises agriculture inputs, processing, output, marketing and

distribution. Agriculture inputs may relate with some material influencing the quality

and quantity of the yield. The material input comprises among others seed; chemical

and organic fertilizer; insecticide, pesticide and herbicides; family labour and paid

labour; agricultural tools and implements; financial capital and credit; and marketing

of the product commodity.

The second aspect of agricultural process concerns with crops non-production

value. This aspect refers to types of cultivated crop and mode of cultivation. The type

of crop and cropping combination is assumed to reflect objective of production or

production orientation. Most farmers who grow rice or other staple foods tend to be

self-subsistence. During harvesting period, when they carry the yield from the field

to the home, the larger part may be kept in rice storage for one year consumption.

Most farmers who grow horticulture or plantation crops may indicate commercial

orientation in production.

3. The Outcome

Each process of agricultural change and development may bring to certain

outcome. The assumed outcome may appear in identifiable mode of production and

in orientation of production. Mode of production can be differentiated into two

simple and contrasting figures whether to follow agricultural diversification or

specialisation. The agricultural specialisation concerns with ultimately mono-crop

cultivation. However, in rural area of Java, this case does not commonly happen due

to variation in season, and the time-span of crop maturity from crop cultivation to

harvesting. In one round year there is possibility that farmer cultivate single crop for

single cultivation period, but in one year round cultivation there are cultivation of

three different crops successively. However, there are also several types of

horticulture that have one year time span or even more.

The production orientation may also be differentiated into two polar of

orientation i.e. commercial or subsistence. Commercial orientation refers to trade

context of the commodity encompassing; selling and exchange. In this regard, the

commercial crops or cash crops for commercial orientation mostly concerns with

horticulture and plantation crops. Farm household may also consume the product of

these horticulture cash crop and plantation crops. However the proportion is very

small. Cultivation for subsistence orientation refers to self consumption of the

commodity. Self consumption crops are mostly staple food crops, especially rice.

The degree of self-consumption may depend on the intensity and production

quantity. In upland non-irrigated area, the cultivation of rice may take only once time

and depends on rainfall. In such a situation, the harvest may be kept for one year

duration and almost nothing left for sale. In other more fertile and irrigated area,

once time rice cultivation may generate sufficient quantity and even surplus for sale.

4. The Impact and The Problems

The sequential flow of thought is understood to end up at constructing farm

household living condition in the context of wealth and livelihood. The living

condition is not stationary.

There are some impulses that may provide insight on the sustainability of

condition and the future tendency. Monetary crisis is considered to be powerful

impulse to bring the wealth and livelihood to shift and change. It is recognized to be

powerful due to its sudden, and unanticipated drive. It has wider impact coverage in

sectoral and regional senses. All sector experiences effect of monetary crisis to

varying degree. Although many are suffered and loss not only the profit but the

investment as well, there are some sectors winning higher profit from crisis. In view

of regional respect, urban area is supposed to suffer more from monetary crisis than

rural area. The basic assumption is that the living of urban area is much related with

monetary economic. It is therefore, the ruling process might be synthesized into

proposition that the higher the level or urbanization of an area, then the higher it

suffers from monetary crisis. It means that rural area with higher degree of urban

influence may suffer more than rural area with higher independence from urban.

Monetary crisis is one and most phenomenal pressure to rural and agricultural

area. However there are also gradual and intensifying stimulus that may contribute to

change in agricultural practices mid farm household wealth and livelihood. Farm

households are assumed to be aware of this stimulus and identify it as problems and

potential for development of their farm. The increasing population pressure or the

limitedness of wage labour are among the intensifying problems of agricultural

practices. The introduction of new method and innovation of new variety or new type

of crop are also issue that may change and give different direction of cultivation

method.