Социология сельской экономики в Южном Сулавеси

Translation will be available soon.
Статья в журнале
Об авторах:


Аннотация:
Индонезия известна как крупнейшая в мире страна-архипелаг. В общей сложности она состоит из 17,508 островов и занимает второе место в мире по длине береговой линии - 81 000 км. Около 67% общей площади занимают прибрежные районы и океан.
В 1976 году количество бедных людей составляло 54,2 млн, т.е. около 40% всего населения Индонезии. В Южном Сулавеси в 2010 году около 913 400 человек (11,6% от общей численности населения) находилось за чертой бедности, из них 794 200 (86,95%) проживало в сельской местности. Государственные органы, а также неправительственные организации оказывают всестороннюю помощь сельскому населению данного региона.

Ключевые слова:

социология, государственное вмешательство, сельская экономика
Цитировать публикацию:
Социология сельской экономики в Южном Сулавеси – С. 244-253.

Sotsiologiya selskoy ekonomiki v Yuzhnom Sulavesi. , 244-253. (in Russian)

Приглашаем к сотрудничеству авторов научных статей

Публикация научных статей по экономике в журналах РИНЦ, ВАК (высокий импакт-фактор). Срок публикации - от 1 месяца.

creativeconomy.ru Москва + 7 495 648 6241




INTRODUCTION

Indonesiais known as the largest archipelagic country in the world, with a total of 17,508 pieces of the island as a whole has the second longest coastline in the world afterCanadais81,000 Km. (Rohmin Dahuri, 1992, BPPT-Wanhankamnas, 1996). Of the total area, about 67% are coastal areas and oceans. Coastal region stretches from the West to the East end and from the south to the northern end of it, has always been inhabited by a population which currently numbers had reached about 60% of the total population of Indonesia (Bappenas, 2004).

Historically told that initially inhabited archipelago stay and live in coastal areas, which then form communities both on the basis of the type and style of work and on the basis of ethnic / tribal; such as fishing communities, gob community, community of merchants (merchants), Bajo, Bugis and so on. These communities in terms of social and economic life, fishing was the poorest communities compared to other communities (Abu Hamid, 1999). What is the meaning and the implications of all the above data? One is that the coastal areas and oceans and we have a strategic significance in the development of the nation.

Referring to data from BPS (2010), shows that since 1976 there were 54.2 million poor people or about 40.00 percent of the total population ofIndonesia. A very high poverty rate at the beginning of the new order. Although at that time the poverty rate is very high, but the overall year-over-year has declined with the passing of the development program launched by the government. Especially from 2006 to2009, adecline in the poverty rate significantly, from 39.30 million (17.75%) to 32.53 million (14.15%). But the numbers are still relatively higher than expected performance. The poverty rate is still high on the average, about 16.56 per cent live in rural areas and only 9.87 percent are living in urban (CBS, 2010).

The poverty rate in the province of South Sulawesi in 2010 range from 913,400 people (11.60%) of the total population, and 794,200 people (86.95%) of the poor population lives in rural areas, while urban only 119 200 (13.05%) ( BPS, 2010). The figures shown above have indicated that people living in rural areas very far behind compared to the population living in urban areas. In fact, this situation should not occur because the production base of the primary needs of the nation is in a rural location. As a supplier to the region normal conditions should be more prosperous rural communities of the area supplied, and not mala vice versa.

There are currently 7.8 million coastal villagers in poor condition, including settlements and key facilities such as education and other public facilities were very poor (CTF, 2011). This figure further reinforces the above statement that the sense of poverty in the midst of the development process while running is fishing communities. Especially for fishermen in small islands, which generally rely only work on the fishing sector due to limited land for agriculture. And is not a secret anymore that the fishing sector employment is still ”open access“ where to get the maximum results, fishers had to move and even then the outcome is uncertain (unpredictable) so prone to the risk of failure than working in the agricultural sector (Arif Satria, 2002). Even in certain months they have to face famine due to natural factors, such as large waves, strong winds and sebainya. These conditions make the fishermen on small islands just trying to live it is important to live (safety first). Sayogyo (1997) says that one of the indicators of poverty occurs is when the income level is below the minimum living standards are assessed on the basic needs of food a person to be able to work and live healthier lives through the fulfillment of rice and nutritional needs.

DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND THEORY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Until now, naming and writing of the social capital of many people, in­cluding the experts still differ. Nevertheless, they generally agree that social ca­pi­tal is very different from other capital such as capital-human capital (human ca­pital), natural capital (natural capital), economic capital (financial capital) and so on. This paper is more interested in using the concept of social capital (later abbreviated to ”KS“) rather than using the concept of translation equivalent in Indonesian ”social capital” because the term ”modalism“ is not synonymous with the term ”capitalism“. These two concepts are very different meaning and application therefore can not be akin (Lawang, 2004). Similarly here does not use the original concept ”social capital“ as the publisher of Al-Qalam Fukuyama use it in the book (though for no apparent reason). That we did as consideration consistent use of grammar.

The root of the oldest concepts of ”KS“ was found in1916, inan article made by LF Hanifan, a reformer campus ofWest Virginia(Woolcock, 1998). He said ”KS“ is the main idea in search of the sociology of the social order form (Wall, et al, 1998: 303). But the concept was not re-emerge in a long time, even in the simplest form. Until finally, brought back Jane Jacob terminology when he was talking about urban planning in the 1980s. Then In the 1970's in North America also found a brief reference to ”KS“ in the writings of Glen Loury, as a critique of the neoclassical theory of racial income inequality (Portes, 1998).

Another source states that the origin of ”KS“ can be found in the philosophy and economic enlightenment made by Hume, Burke and Adam Smith in the 18th century, who not only see the basic institutional, ie the social contract community members, but also see some of the characteristics reciprocal network (Woolcook, 1998: 160). From the discussion presented by the philosopher is the starting point of the modern concept of ”KS“ discussed.

As a summary of the development of the concept and theory of the ”KS“ matrix can be seen below:

Table 1

Matrix development of the concept and definition of social capital

Figures, Year
KS" anchored in
The Independent Variabel
The dependent Variabel
1
2
3
4
Coleman,
1930
Its structure and social relationships, and social institutions
Function obligations, expectations, trustworthiness, channels, norms, sanctions, and network organizations
Action actor or actors in the realm of law
Bourdieu,
1986
The social structure and values (habitus)
Social networks, institutional, collective support
Action Actor
Putnam,
2000
Social institutions
Networks, norms, beliefs
Economic success, democracy
Fukuyama,
1995,2003
Religion, philosophy, culture
Beliefs, values
Cooperation to achieve economic success
1
2
3
4
Woolcock,
1983
Social structures, micro, meso and macro
Intra social bonding (bonding), a network of cooperation among communities (bridging), networking with formal institutions (linking)
Developing a community
Bank Dunia,1999
Social institution
Institutions, norms and social relations
Social Action
Turner,2005
Social relationships
Strength
Economic development.
Swift,1998
Social relationships
Networks, trust and expectations
Problems or social crisis
Lawang,
2004
Social structures, micro-, meso macro
Social forces with other capital community
Efficiency and effectiveness in addressing
Nan Lin,
2001
Relationships and social structures
Measures expressive or instrumental.
Sources terlekat (embedded resources)
Pratikno dkk,
2001
Institutions or institutional
Values, institutions and mechanisms
Social action
Sources: Lawang, 2005 and compiled from various sources.

CAPITAL RESOURCES AND SOCIAL DIMENSION

Grouping sources and dimensions ”KS“ can be seen in the matrix:

Table 2

Matrix of sources and dimensions of social capital

Figures, Year
Source and Dimension
Pantoja,1999
Sources of social capital, namely: family relationships, life organizing, networking, political society, rule of formal rules and norms, values. Furthermore Pantoja argued separately dimensional "KS", namely: trust, norms and networks
Grootaert,1999
Total membership, the level of diversity of members, itensitas meetings, decision-making level, tingakt contributions, community orientation.
World Bank,
2004
Network / bond relationship, solidarity and trust, mutual cooperation, communication and information, inclusion and social cohesion in society, policy and empowerment.
Putnam,2000
Habit, common goals, relationships in the association, as institutions, the intensity of the relationship, location relations.
Haddad,2000
The participation rate of households, group function for the household, the level of household confidence in the group.
Summary, 2011
Trust, norms, networks, value, number and level of diversity of membership of a member, the intensity of the meetings, decision-making level, the level of contribution, solidarity, mutual cooperation, policies and empowerment, as well as a common goal
Source: Adapted from various sources (literature).

CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY AND SMALL ISLANDS

Point begins with a discussion of the concept of community (community). Community which is then translated into community Koentjaraningrat (1990) has the meaning as ”a unity of human life, which occupies an area of real and interact according to a system of customs and by a sense of community identity that has characteristics, namely the unity of the region, customs union, a sense of identity as a community and a sense of loyalty to the community itself“.

Different views expressed by Soekanto (2002) which defines community as the local community. Local people refer to citizens of a village, town, tribe or nation in which its members live together so as to feel that the group can meet the interests of key life. Geographical attachment is a basic characteristic of its subject as a community, but this is not enough, because a community must have a so-called community sentiment or feeling of community. Feelings as a community has several elements, namely feeling, sepenanggungan and mutual need. Of the two commend the above it can be concluded that the community has many similarities and ties that unite them among other geographical ties, feelings / attitudes, social norms and bonds (customs), and has a specific ecological characteristics (typical).

Small islands are defined based on two main criteria island area and the number of people who inhabit it. The definition of small islands held nationally according to Kep. Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No.. 41/2000 Jo Kep. Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No.. 67/2002 is an island smaller than or equal to 10,000 km2, with a population of less than or equal to200,000. Inaddition to these key criteria, some of the characteristics of small islands are ecologically separate from its parent island (mainland island), has a clear physical boundaries and habitat islands isolated from the parent, so it is insular; having a large number of endemic species and the diversity of the typical and high value; unable to influence hidroklimat; having catchment area (catchment area) is relatively small so that most of the surface water and sediment flow into the sea as well as in terms of social, economic and cultural life of the small islands is unique compared to its parent island.

It can be concluded that the small island community is a community that maximum number 200,000 people, living on the islands are geographically separated from their parent island with an area of10,000 kmmaximum. and sfesifik have in common and the bond that unites them among other geographical ties, feelings / attitudes, social norms and bonds (customs).

Small island community will also include a variety of sub-communities, but the most common sub-community (dominant) was found to coastal communities. In general, coastal komuitas dihui komuitas fishing is synonymous with ecological characteristics. Coastal community is a living entity that humans occupy coastal areas. Dahuri and Nugroho (2005), wrote that did not escape the coastal boundaries of the intended use and management. Komuitas fishermen are people who live in coastal areas, which generally work for fish or other marine organisms to meet the needs of everyday life. As with communities, fishing communities have specific characteristics that distinguish it from other communities, that their activities ever come in contact with the marine environment and coastal livelihoods. Mubyarto, et al (1984) states that fishing communities are communities that have their own characteristics and living by the beach, so it can also be referred to as people who live in the ”fishing village seaside village“ which makes fishing for livelihood are important (Sastrawidjaya, 2000).

Dahuri and Nugroho (2005), the nature and characteristics of fishing communities is determined by the interaction between the factors of social, economic, environmental and earnings uncertainty due to the dependence on the season or the occurrence of damage to marine ecosystems caused by pollution or fishing berelebihan, which in eventually worsen their fish catches. Socio-economic conditions of the fishermen increasingly difficult with the economic crisis and the rising prices of fuel oil (BBM). Operating expenses for the sail increased to three to four times more than usual.

Fishermen will sail at sea had little waves, ie November to May The fishermen will be unemployed and living at home at sea experiencing huge waves, ie June to October. In this season, earnings plummeted fisherman, fishermen just stealing time on the sidelines of the relatively short time the wind changes to catch fish. Reliance on the higher this season for the small fishermen who can not afford pandhiega Menga ”KS” ice fishing technology (90 percent of fishermen inIndonesiadominate traditional fishing technology). This condition has implications for consumer behavior. In the fishing season, fishermen tend consumption and the relative shortage in the dry season.

THE STATE AND MARKET INTERVENTION ON LOCAL COMMUNITY

State intervention through development programs, including the bureaucracy and administration. Similarly, market penetration through the process of capitalization and monetization actually make subordinate local communities, where the state as superstructure while the local community as a substructure. In this case the interaction is not balanced between the state and the market as a superstructure of the local community as a substructure hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). Through the process of interaction is the dominant class to control the lower classes using ideology. Dominant class consciousness manipulate the lower classes so without realizing it, they are willing and supportive power of the dominant class. The term comes from the Greek hegemony, namely hegeishtai meaning lead, leadership, or the power that exceeds the power of the other. The concept of hegemony became popular after being used as a reference to the idea that Gramsci understood as supporting the idea that the power of a particular social group. As Gramsci's theory of hegemony that are triggered are:

A view of life and the dominant way of thinking, in which a concept of reality disseminated in society both institutional and individual; (ideology) dictate all tastes, moral customs, religious principles and political, as well as all social relations, particularly in terms of intellectual and moral.

Based on the concept of hegemony, Gramsci believes that to be the eternal power it requires at least two working devices. First, the working device that is able to commit acts of violence or any coercive law enforcemant nuanced work. It inii usually performed by state institutions (state) through institutions such as the law, the military, police and even a prison. Second, the device is capable of working with the community to persuade institutions to abide by those in power through religious life, education, the arts and even family (Heryanto, 1997).

Devices this work usually performed by civil society (civil society) melailui society institutions such as NGOs, social and religious organizations, associations and community-interest groups (interest groups). Both of these levels on the one hand related to the function of hegemony which the dominant group to handle the whole local community and on the other hand related to the dominance of direct or command implemented throughout the state and judicial administration (Gramsci, 1971).

ECONOMIC GROWTH DEVELOPMENT

Due to the high level of poverty in fishing communities, encouraging a range of interventions from the state bureaucracy and administrative standards are standard through development programs, whether conducted by the government (the state) as well as from the non-governmental organization (NGO) or NGOs. Call, among others, since the reign of the new order to the government through a ”growth economic development“ an approach to development that is only oriented to be primarily economic needs (charity), there has undertaken various development programs primarily through community empowerment program between Other: Presidential Villages (IDT), net for secure Social (JPS), Program for Community Empowerment in Overcoming Poverty (PDM-DKE), Development Program (KDP), the Urban Poverty Program (P2KP), the latest at the moment is the National Program Community Empowerment (PNPM Mandiri) is the revised P2KP, Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) and others.

Development programs referred to above has lasted longer and has managed to carve a number of achievements. But apparently not been able to solve the problems of poverty, especially for fishing communities especially for fishermen who live on small islands. An achievement which is unfortunate in the middle of such a high seriousness to emerge from poverty. Provisional estimates as one contributing factor is that due to the development programs are too uniform society's problems (bias-heterogeneity) and tend to ignore local values (social capital) local communities. In this case the interaction is not balanced between the countries as a superstructure of the fishing community as a substructure hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). Dominant class to control the lower classes using ideology. Dominant class consciousness manipulate the lower classes so without realizing it, they are willing and supportive power of the dominant class. For example, when the dominant class (the government) involves the intelligentsia in the government bureaucracy and intervention through formal institutions such as, education, the arts, public policy, and so on.

Penetration of new culture includes the values attached to them by building on the one hand can shrink the values and social institutions of the fishing community that is based on the principle of mutual help (solidarity) and revenue sharing (reciprocity), mutual trust and compliance institutional arrangements as their social capital. But on the other hand without the intervention (modernization) means the stagnant (Hayami and Kikhuci, 2002). Even reformers agents into the local community, in general, still considers that the rural community is a stupid, old-fashioned, traditional, closed, poor and other stereotyping attached to him. However developmentalism also produces cultural compromise, between overlapping cultural systems, primarily from ”above“ and from ”below“. As with a result of cultural contestation and competition is not balanced between the state and the community, so the local culture marginalized. This then led to a number of social disfungsionalitas maintained by local institutions.

Top view of the (stereotypical) were less sympathetic, as mentioned above, led to the marginalized or alienated from the programs of development itself. Therefore it is not uncommon program-development program that is run just got a rejection (resistance) of the local community. The situation is further made that development programs have been implemented and run fails to increase the degree of local community welfare that makes the bond bounding local collective warm and strong. Now the bonds were to be bland and cold, because of the strong currents of conflicting individual interests. Failure after failure of various development programs, the main factor is that little or no social capital owned difungsikannya local communities as potential support development programs (Yujiro Hayami and Masao Kikhuci, 2002).

Neglect of the social capital of the hegemony of the state and the market through development programs, bureaucracy, administration, monetization and capitalization unconsciously slowly been making local institutions and shared values such as attitudes mutual help, sharing (reciprocity), a sense of trust (trust), solidarity etc. shrinkage (Fukuyama, 2004). Therefore do not be surprised if the current behavior in the community tend to be individualistic pedesaanpun, do not trust (distrust) and solidarity (disharmonis) so easily provoked that often lead to conflict situations (conflict). Preliminary studies researchers, showed that the fishing communityTakabonerateIslands, had lost the nature of trust, co-operation (the nature of mutual assistance), the decline in share properties. Yet it is undeniable that in the other case, for example the expansion of social networks, especially with communities outside their region.

The process of social capital depreciation should not be allowed to drag on, because if the process is still ongoing without any attempt to halt it, the longer our society will degenerate social capital. In such a situation, then make them lose their grip and identity, because their values and social institutions they have been replaced with the values and new institutions without their knowing it, thus making them even more alienated by their own people. In such a position, our society would indeed be fragile in many things so easily swayed and uncontrollable.

SUMMARY

Due to the high level of poverty in fishing communities, encouraging a range of interventions from the state bureaucracy and administrative standards are standard through development programs, whether conducted by the government (the state) as well as from the non-governmental organization (NGO) or NGOs, such as the approach of ”economic growth development“, the community empowerment include: Presidential Villages (IDT), net for secure Social (JPS), program for Community Empowerment in Overcoming Poverty (PDM-DKE), Development program (KDP), the Urban Poverty Program (P2KP), the latest at the moment is the National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM Mandiri) is the revised P2KP, Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) and others.



Издание научных монографий от 15 т.р.!

Издайте свою монографию в хорошем качестве всего за 15 т.р.!
В базовую стоимость входит корректура текста, ISBN, DOI, УДК, ББК, обязательные экземпляры, загрузка в РИНЦ, 10 авторских экземпляров с доставкой по России.

creativeconomy.ru Москва + 7 495 648 6241



Источники:
1. Allen, T. and Thomas A. 2000. Poverty and Development into the 21st Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
2. Ancok, Djamaluddin, 2003, Social Capital and the Quality Community, Inauguration Speech Title Professor of University of Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, May 3, 2003.
3. Bebbington, et al. , 2006. The Search For Empowerment Social Capital as Idea and Prac-tice at the World Bank. Kumarian Press inc.
4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. John Richardson, New York: Greenwood.
5. Bourdieu, Pierre, 2010. Arena Production Cultural Studies As Cultural Sociology (Trans-lated Yudi Santoso), Creative Discourse, Bantul.
6. Bowles, Samuel. , 1999. ”Social Capital 'and Community Governance. Focus: Newsletter of the Institute for Research on Poverty 20 (3) :6-10.
7. Coleman, James. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 (supplement): S95-S120.
8. Collins, Randall, 1994. Four Sociological Tradition, Oxford University Press, New York.
9. Dahuri, R.; J. Rais, S.P. Ginting, and M.J. Sitepu. 1996. Resource Management Integrated Coastal and Ocean. PT. Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta.
10. Dahuri, R.; J. Rais, S.P. Ginting, and M.J. Sitepu, 2002. National Policy and Strategic Management of Coastal Resources and Marine Sustainably. Ministry of Fisheries and Ma-rine Resources. Jakarta.
11. Damsar, 2009, Introduction to Economic Sociology, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Ja-karta.
12. Dasgupta, Partha and Ismail Serageldin, eds., 2000. Social Capital: A multifaceted Pers-pective. Washington DC: World Bank.
13. Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Editors), 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Re-search (second edition), Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, Inc.., London.
14. Board Hankamnas, 1996, Indonesian Maritime Continent, BPPT, Jakarta.
15. Dharmawan, A.H. and Agustina M. Purnomo, 2006, Livelihoods Strategy and Investment Failure ”Build Social Capital ': Lessons from Model Pengeloalaan Collaborative Forest Communities in Kuningan regency, Research Papers, Rural Sociology Program Graduate School, IPB. 2007 The Sociological Tradition Economic Thought and its Relevance for the Study of Rural Sociology in Indonesia, Supplements Economics Rural Sociology Lecture, IPB
16. Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in develping Countries. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York.
17. Field, John, 2010, Social Capital Original Title Translation of Social Capital, Creative Discourse, Bantul.
18. Fine, Ben. , 2001. Social Capital Versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium. London: Routledge.
19. Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.
20. Grootaert, Christiaan. , 1998. Social Capital: The Missing Link. Working Paper No.. 3. Washington DC: The World Bank.
21. Hamid, Abu, 1999, Community Development and maritime Fishermen, A Socio Economic Anthropology, Graduate Hasanuddin University Press, Makassar.
22. Iqbal, Moch. , 2004. Fishermen Household Livelihoods Strategy. Two Case Studies in Fi-shermans catch Kab. Lamongan East Java. Master Thesis SPS IPB. Bogor.
23. Kinseng, Rilus A. 2007, Class and Social Conflict in The Fishermen in Indonesia, Disser-tation, UI Press, Jakarta.
24. Kusnadi, (edited), 2004, Poverty Polemic Fishermen huts and Education Reform Working Group, Bantul.
25. Krishna, Anirudh. , 2004. Understanding, Measuring, and utilizing Social Capital: Clarify-ing Concepts and Presenting Field Application from India. Journal Elsavier Agricultural Systems 82 (2004) 291-305.
26. Lawang, Robert Z. 2006, Anti Rural Sociological Analysis The (speech Professor of Soci-ology Modern Fisip UI), UI, Jakarta.
27. Lin, Nan et al (edt), 2009, Social Capital, and Research, Aldine De Gruyter, New York.
28. Nuryaddin, La Ode Taufik. , 2010. Social Capital Community Case Studies Community Bajo Bajo Baliara Island, Southeast Sulawesi. Dissertation. FISIP UI Depok.
29. Prayitno, Ujianto Singgih, 2004, Social Capital and Economic Resilience of Poor Families, Jakarta, Indonesia University Press.
30. Polanyi, Karl, 1994. Transformation of the great Origin of Political and Economic Times Now (Translated M.Taufiq Rahman), Library Student, Yogyakarta.
31. Putnam, Robert. 1993b. The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. American Prospect. Spring.
32. Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman, 2007, Modern Sociological Theory (Alimandan translations), Kencana Jakarta.
33. Rothstein, BO, 2005. Social Traps and the Problem of Trust, Cambridge University Press, New York.
34. Rukminto, Adi Isbandi, 2008, the Community Development Community Intervention Ef-forts For Community Empowerment, Eagles Press PT.Radja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
35. Saegert, Susan et al (editors), 2001, Social Capital and Poor Communities, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
36. Salman, Dharmawan, 2006, Universe Maritime, Modernity and the Dialectics Articulated Capitalism in Konjo coast of South Sulawesi, Ininnawa, Makassar.
37. Satria, Arif. 2002. Introduction to Sociology Coastal Communities. Cidesindo, Jakarta.
38. Subejo, 2004, The Role of Social Capital in Economic Development, An Introduction to the Study of Social Capital in Rural Indonesia, Argo Journal of Economics, Vol. 11. No. June 1, 2004 (77-86).
39. South Sulawesi in Figures, 2010, BPS South Sulawesi, Makassar.