CONTESTING VALUES IN AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN INDONESIA

JURNAL TATA LOKA; VOLUME 10; NOMOR 2; MEI 2008 © 2008 Biro Penerbit Planologi UNDIP

201

T A T A

L O K A

CONTESTING VALUES IN AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT

POLICY IN INDONESIA

Oleh:

Prihadi Nugroho

Jurusan Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Diponegoro

Abstrak: Pengenalan kebijakan pembangunan agropolitan oleh pemerintah indonesia telah dimulai sejak tahun 2002 yang diindikasikan dengan pendekatan parsial bagi pembangunan perdesaan. Pemerintah mengambil kebijakan tersebut dengan memperhatikan analisis pertimbangan kasus per kasus (kasuistis)mengingat kejadian apa yang sebenarnya terjadi saat itu. Sebenarnya penciptaan sebuah kebijakan kebanyakan dipicu oleh efek krisis asia tahun 1997 dimana pertanian dan sektor-sektor perdesaan memikul beban dalam menggerakkan output ekonomi dan memberikan kontribusi terhadap penciptaan lapangan kerja baru. Pada momen lain yang memberikan alasan logis dari pengenalan kebijakan adalah perundang-undangan UU. No22 tahun 1999 tentang Pemerintahan regional. Undang-undang ini mendorong perubahan kekuasaan pemerintah daerah dalam usaha kebijakan-kebijakan pembangunan. Gabungan penekanan-penekanan itu selama waktu tersebut dan soal pertumbuhan pemerintah pusat bagi penguatan kredibilitas telah menjadi prinsip mendasar pengenalan kebijakan pembangunan agropolitan. Pada kasus ini, terdapat sedikitnya tiga nilai maksud pemerintah untuk mempromosikan: keadilan sosial, kepercayaan sendiri, dan ketersediaan. Sekalipun terdapat banyak fakta bahwa pemerintah secara dominan mendukung nilai keadilan sosial daripada yang lain, pemerintah dengan ikhlas untuk mendorong nilai tersebut tidak dapat dibongkar dari kondisi terkini. Hal itu berarti tekanan-tekanan yang berpengaruh diluar strukutr pemerintah mungkin memberi kontribusi dalam kemajuan kebijakan. Oleh karena itu, sekali pemerintah mengenalkan kebijakan-kebijakan particular, hal itu memungkinkan timbul pertanyaan apakah pemerintah benar-benar mendukung dan melanjutkan kebijakan itu atau hanya usaha untuk mengurangi permintaan publik.

Kata Kunci : Kebijakan Nilai, Pembangunan Agropolitan, Pendekatan Kasusistis, Indonesia

INTRODUCTION

Having a great potential as a big agrarian country, the development of agriculture and ru-ral sectors in Indonesia has not demonstrated the performance level expected by many schol-ars. Until recent years these sectors have domi-nated the national labour force although their contribution in forming the economic output declines. Approximately 60 per cent of national labour force is contributed by agriculture sectors while its share to the formation of national gross

domestic product (GDP) is less than 25 per cent on average. In addition, their beneficial impacts in improving the domestic farmers’ standards of living are getting weaker creating a sustained ru-ral deprivation. The trend of Nilai Tukar Petani or Farmer’s Exchange Rate, the indicator which is used to monitor farmer’s ability to purchase goods and services, is also becoming lower in contrast to the increase of basic needs and prices of goods and services. To make it worse, the intensified pressures of urbanisation to rural re-

PRIHADI NUGROHO CONTESTING VALUES IN AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN INDONESIA

202 JURNAL TATA LOKA; VOLUME 10; NOMOR 2; MEI 2008

gions particularly in Java Island since 1980s, have diminished the opportunities of rural peo-ple to cultivate farmlands. The urban settlement growth outwards has changed many agriculture land uses to urban properties and facilities. It is not surprising when the statistics shows that more than 70 per cent of farmers has no longer occupied their own lands or been working in nonagriculture sectors.

Such contradictory situation partly is associ-ated with the lack of government attention on the importance of these sectors on national de-velopment. Since 1970s the Indonesian govern-ment has pursued high economic growth by promoting rapid industrialisation (Hill 2000, p.11). Policies that support this sector are more favoured than those that promote agriculture and rural sectors. Theoretically, industrialisation can promote high economic growth through capital accumulation processes and economic turnovers. By concentrating capitals in industry sectors total production efficiency can be achieved and their spillovers of benefits can be transmitted effectively downward to the lower sectors. However, the economic benefits result-ing from the achievement of industrialisation strategies in fact could not help the redistribu-tion of welfare to rural economy. Many studies have shown that accelerated industrialisation led to overexploitation of rural economies. On the other hand, many agriculture- and rural-oriented policies in the past have failed to link these sec-tors into the mainstream economy. Most of these policies were built by using sectoral ap-proaches, which led to sector isolations within the national framework of economic develop-ment. Paradoxically, instead of promoting self-reliance, these policies have resulted in higher dependencies of agriculture and rural sectors to urban economy. Such circumstance has contrib-uted to policy failures in lasting self-sufficiency in food production as part of domestic food se-curity programs.

To answer these problems, the Indonesian Government introduced agropolitan develop-ment policy in 2002. This policy offers an inte-gral approach for accelerated rural development. There are at least three key values the govern-ment intends to promote in this policy: social equity, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. Basi-cally they relate to one another to underpin the policy existence, but the government tends to promote social equity as the dominant value.

The reasoning of this preference does not only rest on the nature of government responsibility to redistribute welfare across the country, but also is shaped by the ‘new’ recognition of its im-portance to national economy, in particular in contributing to overcome economic shocks. The experience from the 1997 Asian Crisis portrayed how the agriculture and rural sectors remained important in providing supportive livelihood for urban workers. While a plenty of urban indus-tries collapsed during the Crisis which resulted in a sudden massive unemployment, these sectors could create employment opportunities through informal sectors and small and medium busi-nesses. However, it seems that the government only advances agropolitan development with regard to its merits to relieving increased critics to government to recover national economy. I argue that the introduction of agropolitan devel-opment policy only represents the government politics to strengthen its credibility instead of paying greater attention to the improvement of agriculture and rural sectors. This policy has merely demonstrated the practice of instrumen-tal rationality model, where the government tends to weight the importance of particular val-ues with regard to their pragmatic functions to overcome development problems in particular context of time and place (Thacher & Rein 2004, pp.457-458). This paper then is aimed to scruti-nise how this model is relevant to balancing value conflicts in the agropolitan development policy.

Having a great potential as a big agrarian country, the development of agriculture and ru-ral sectors in Indonesia has not demonstrated the performance level expected by many schol-ars. Until recent years these sectors have domi-nated the national labour force although their contribution in forming the economic output declines. Approximately 60 per cent of national labour force is contributed by agriculture sectors while its share to the formation of national gross domestic product (GDP) is less than 25 per cent on average. In addition, their beneficial impacts in improving the domestic farmers’ standards of living are getting weaker creating a sustained ru-ral deprivation. The trend of Nilai Tukar Petani or Farmer’s Exchange Rate, the indicator which is used to monitor farmer’s ability to purchase goods and services, is also becoming lower in contrast to the increase of basic needs and prices of goods and services. To make it worse, the

CONTESTING VALUES IN AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY PRIHADI NUGROHO IN INDONESIA

JURNAL TATA LOKA; VOLUME 10; NOMOR 2; MEI 2008 203

intensified pressures of urbanisation to rural re-gions particularly in Java Island since 1980s, have diminished the opportunities of rural peo-ple to cultivate farmlands. The urban settlement growth outwards has changed many agriculture land uses to urban properties and facilities. It is not surprising when the statistics shows that more than 70 per cent of farmers has no longer occupied their own lands or been working in nonagriculture sectors.

Such contradictory situation partly is associ-ated with the lack of government attention on the importance of these sectors on national de-velopment. Since 1970s the Indonesian govern-ment has pursued high economic growth by promoting rapid industrialisation (Hill 2000, p.11). Policies that support this sector are more favoured than those that promote agriculture and rural sectors. Theoretically, industrialisation can promote high economic growth through capital accumulation processes and economic turnovers. By concentrating capitals in industry sectors total production efficiency can be achieved and their spillovers of benefits can be transmitted effectively downward to the lower sectors. However, the economic benefits result-ing from the achievement of industrialisation strategies in fact could not help the redistribu-tion of welfare to rural economy. Many studies have shown that accelerated industrialisation led to overexploitation of rural economies. On the other hand, many agriculture- and rural-oriented policies in the past have failed to link these sec-tors into the mainstream economy. Most of these policies were built by using sectoral ap-proaches, which led to sector isolations within the national framework of economic develop-ment. Paradoxically, instead of promoting self-reliance, these policies have resulted in higher dependencies of agriculture and rural sectors to urban economy. Such circumstance has contrib-uted to policy failures in lasting self-sufficiency in food production as part of domestic food se-curity programs.

To answer these problems, the Indonesian Government introduced agropolitan develop-ment policy in 2002. This policy offers an inte-gral approach for accelerated rural development. There are at least three key values the govern-ment intends to promote in this policy: social equity, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. Basi-cally they relate to one another to underpin the policy existence, but the government tends to

promote social equity as the dominant value. The reasoning of this preference does not only rest on the nature of government responsibility to redistribute welfare across the country, but also is shaped by the ‘new’ recognition of its im-portance to national economy, in particular in contributing to overcome economic shocks. The experience from the 1997 Asian Crisis portrayed how the agriculture and rural sectors remained important in providing supportive livelihood for urban workers. While a plenty of urban indus-tries collapsed during the Crisis which resulted in a sudden massive unemployment, these sectors could create employment opportunities through informal sectors and small and medium busi-nesses. However, it seems that the government only advances agropolitan development with regard to its merits to relieving increased critics to government to recover national economy. I argue that the introduction of agropolitan devel-opment policy only represents the government politics to strengthen its credibility instead of paying greater attention to the improvement of agriculture and rural sectors. This policy has merely demonstrated the practice of instrumen-tal rationality model, where the government tends to weight the importance of particular val-ues with regard to their pragmatic functions to overcome development problems in particular context of time and place (Thacher & Rein 2004, pp.457-458). This paper then is aimed to scruti-nise how this model is relevant to balancing value conflicts in the agropolitan development policy.

THE CONCEPT OF AGROPOLITAN DE-

VELOPMENT REVISITED

The concept of agropolitan development was created by Friedmann and Douglass in 1975 to deal with the problems of dichotomy between urban and rural economies in the Asian develop-ing nations. Since 1960s these countries have adopted growth-pole strategy for pursuing high economic growth, where industrialisation was praised as economic prime mover. However, this decision later on created two faces of national economy which were mutually disruptive. Mod-ern industrialisation in urban areas has led to overexploitation of rural resources while the persisting traditional peasant economy on the other hand, has augmented the demand of urban services to rural areas. Consequently, this strat-egy encouraged deteriorating effects for both



urban and rural regions such as urban conges-tion and slums, the lack of rural resources, and long-lasting rural poverty (Friedmann & Doug-lass 1978, pp.164-177; Lo & Salih 1981, pp.124-132).

The agropolitan term per se comes from ‘agri-culture’ and ‘polis’ (cities), thereby agropolitan simply can be defined as cities that are sur-rounded by agriculture fields. This strategy at-tempts to strengthen the existing rural centres or small towns in providing urban services to rural communities. In doing so, there are three key features that underpin the theory. First, the crea-tion of an effective agropolitan district requires limited size of rural space for meeting the eco-nomics of scale. Each district is designed to serve 50,000 to 150,000 inhabitants whom mostly engaged in agriculture-related activities. Second, the potential agropolitan centres must be equipped with sufficient basic facilities and infrastructure. This includes the provision of agriculture-related services (production supplies, agro-processing facilities and marketing ser-vices), social facilities (education, health, and government branches), and infrastructure (roads, electricity, telecommunication, and water sys-tems) for creating rural decent life. Third, the power devolution to local governing authority is a prerequisite to ensuring the suitability of de-velopment projects with local needs. This at-tempt has two purposes: appreciating local communities in preserving their own traditions and strengthening local capacity to manage their own developments (Friedmann & Douglass 1978, pp.184-186).

In Indonesia the agropolitan development was adopted as government policy in 2002. This policy was endorsed by the Ministry of Agricul-ture (MOA) in accordance with the Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (MSRI). Its main purpose is to increase rural people’s income and welfare by fostering competitive agro-business systems through decentralised sus-tainable local development. In doing so the de-velopment of agropolitan districts is articulated with national urban systems, through which the market networks and the improvement of agri-culture commodities value-added can be at-tained. As the policy emphasises a ‘one district one product’ paradigm, only a few potential commodities will be promoted in these districts depending on their local competitiveness. A set of objectives has been proposed to empowering

rural communities in local development, strengthening rural institutions, developing agro-business systems, improving basic facilities and infrastructure, and creating friendly business climate (Lukitaningsih 2004; Ditjen Mukim 2004; Andri 2006; Rustiadi & Hadi 2006).

Basically most of the original agropolitan concept has been endorsed by the GOI in the making of agropolitan development policy. The government realised that the urban infrastruc-ture provision to rural regions plays significant role in stimulating the development of agropoli-tan districts. Therefore, the government pro-motes the improved connections of rural econ-omy into the urban networks for ensuring the marketing of potential agriculture commodities. But, such adoption is incomplete for realising agropolitan development policy. The govern-ment approach which mostly stresses on the im-provement of physical resources such as rural infrastructure and agro-business facilities is not enough to overcome the problems of rural backwardness. One problem is related to the geographical distance between rural region which varies across the country. In Java Island the prerequisite of commuting distance (5 – 10 kms) may be applied as the size of rural districts is relatively small. However, this condition may not be applicable in other islands like Kaliman-tan and Papua where the distance between vil-lages may require overnight travel. As a result, this approach will probably imply on the exces-sive costs of building the adequate rural infra-structure. Another problem is associated with the devolution of power to rural communities. In the original concept Friedmann and Douglass suggest the importance of giving rural communi-ties sufficient authority to decide the direction of their own agropolitan development. In Indone-sia context this condition cannot be applied sat-isfactorily because the village governments have no authority to allocate and redistribute re-sources through financing and budgeting mechanisms. Village governments only functions as the lowest administrative units with the main duties of providing support to the higher gov-ernments in delivering development projects and administering citizenship issues at village level.

Hence, to make the concept workable the GOI preferably strengthens the capacity of small towns at subdistrict level, which called as kota kecamatan. The subdistrict governments have more autonomous authority in determining local



developments even though their financial re-sources are attached to municipal or district gov-ernments. This means that the authority of sub-district governments to promote local develop-ments is limited to and bonded to the municipal or district governments. According to the Law No. 32 Year 2004 about Regional Governance, municipal or district governments are the lowest level of tiers of government which have authori-tative role undertaking local development fi-nancing and budgeting. Aside from its limita-tions, there are still some principal functions that these towns may perform in supporting agricul-ture development, i.e. the centre for agricultural trade and transportation, agricultural support services, agro-industries and non-farming activi-ties. Meantime, the peripheral rural areas sur-rounding these towns are designated for func-tioning as production centres, or called as kawa-san sentra produksi (KSP). According to Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pertanian (BPSDMP) or the Human Resources Develop-ment Agency in the MOA, KSP may represent a number of villages or hamlets which carry out some criteria as follows:

• Covering a certain territory with the size of population between 5,000 to 15,000 or equivalent to 1,000 – 3,000 households with approximate 30 minutes of road travel distance to the main agropolitan centre;

• Having potential commodities;

• Having potential cultivating farmlands with agro-ecology features are suitable to the development of potential commodities;

• Agriculture products cultivation is the prime economic activities;

• Having sufficient agriculture products storage facilities;

• Having some agriculture-based cottage in-dustries that support the potential com-modities;

• Having local marketplaces for potential commodities;

• Having sufficient infrastructure and supra-structure that carry out local norms and standards of living;

• Having a perimeter closure between 2 – 5 kms (BPSDMP, 2002).

In addition, KSP is vertically linked to some agropolitan subcentres and main centre. Princi-pally, agropolitan subcentres may appear as small towns or subdistrict capitals which play the roles

of collecting potential commodities from the KSPs for more advanced agro-processing and marketing. Meantime, the agropolitan centre can be viewed as the highest level in an agropolitan district, which may appear as medium towns, larger subdistrict capitals or district capitals. Ac-cording to BPSDMP (2002), the features of ag-ropolitan subcentres (kota tani) are:

• Representing Daerah Pusat Pertumbuhan Ag-ribisnis (DPPA) or Agro-business Growth Centre;

• Covering a certain territory with popula-tion size of 15,000 – 75,0000 inhabitants or equivalent to 3,000 – 15,000 households with approximate 15 minutes of road travel distance to main agropolitan centre, and having at least three KSPs;

• Having some potential commodities from its supporting KSPs;

• Agriculture products cultivation is the prime economic activities;

• Having small and medium agro-industries which are using material inputs form its KSPs;

• Having potential cultivating farmlands with agro-ecology features are suitable to the development of potential commodities, and having limited area of services to agro-business activities;

• Having local marketplaces for KSPs’ prod-ucts;

• Having sufficient urban infrastructure and facilities;

• Having sufficient storage facilities that support the collection of KSPs’ products;

• Having grociery markets outside of the ag-ropolitan district;

• Having a number of nongovernmental or-ganisations that support the development of agro-business activities;

• Having a perimeter closure between 10 – 15 kms.

The characteristics of agropolitan centre (kota tani utama) are as follows:

• Representing DPPA;

• Covering a certain territory with popula-tion size of 75,000 – 225,0000 inhabitants or equivalent to 5,000 – 45,000 house-holds;

• Having some potential commodities from its supporting subcentres;



• Having sufficient storage facilities that support the collection of KSPs’ products;

• Having urban infrastructure and supra-structure;

• Having grociery markets outside of the dis-trict;

• Having medium and large agro-industries which are using material inputs form its KSPs;

• Having trading houses and agro-business workshops;

• Having agriculture research and develop-ment institutions;

• Having a local development meeting fo-rum;

• Having agro-business financial institutions;

• Having a perimeter closure between 15-35 kms.

Sumber: Christaller, 1979

Picture 1. The Market System of Agropolitan District

Besides strengthening their economic func-tions, the increased authoritative capacity of ag-ropolitan districts is also emphasised by the cen-tral government. Each district may establish spe-cific self-governing institutions in determining and managing development projects. Within this framework the role of MOA is to provide tech-nical assistance for local farmers and rural insti-tutions in improving the quality of competitive products, agro-business and agro-processing ac-tivities and marketing networks. Meantime, the role of MSRI is to improve basic services of ru-ral and agriculture-related facilities and infra-structure in agropolitan districts. Nevertheless, such government support is subject to the na-tional development strategy and the availability of budget allocation. As a consequence, any ini-tiatives come from below still cannot be pre-vented from interventions from higher levels of governments. Therefore, the agropolitan devel-opment policy can be seen as political tools of

the central government in controlling develop-ments at lower levels instead of giving away the rural communities in shaping their own liveli-hood (Soenarno 2004; Depkimpraswil 2006; Pusdata DPU 2006; Apriyantono 2007).

CONTESTING VALUES OF SOCIAL EQUITY, SELF-RELIANCE AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY

IN THE AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT

POLICY

Theoretically, there are at least two different approaches to find how governments balance conflicting values in the given policies. The first approach views government policies as a reflec-tion of government efforts in resolving value conflicts. According to Lindblom (1965), gov-ernments play an important role as ‘machinery for resolving value conflicts’ in policy process; thereby, government policies are a mix of con-testing values. Later, to find out which values are more favoured than others, Doern and Phidd

I

M

M

M

M

LEGEND I first order market area II second order market area III third order market area M1 the marketplace for agropolitan centre M2 the marketplace for agropolitan subcentre M3 the marketplace for commodity collections M4 the marketplace for commodity supports



(1983) suggest the use of policy map model. This model is useful to analyse the shift of govern-ment preferences to particular values by tracing back the possible combination of these values during policy process. The dominant values that appear in the final policy decision are likely to represent their virtue relative to others in re-sponding to changing environment in the policy making (Botterill 2004, pp.200, 204-205).

The second approach views government policies based on their pragmatic functions in solving particular problems. Rather than resolv-ing value conflicts, this approach offers an alter-native way in promoting particular values in the given policies, an instrumental rationality model. Developed from Weber’s idea, this model sug-gests rational thinking mechanisms as the most efficient way in the policy making by isolating

the preferred values relating to their usefulness in achieving policy objectives. This means that certain policies may contain different dominant values over time depending on the trade-offs among them to respond changing environment in the policy making (Thacher & Rein 2004, pp.457-458). The following sections will discuss how this instrumental rationality model applies in the agropolitan development policy. This ra-tionalising process will be investigated by look-ing at the policy rationale, the policy objectives, and the policy implementation as presented in official documents, media reports and public speeches. There are three values I would like to analyse in line with the attempts of finding out the truth of how the government prioritises one value to another, i.e. social equity, self-reliance and self-sufficiency (see figure 2).

Picture 2. Three Values in Agropolitan Development Policy

The rationale of the agropolitan development

policy mainly emanates from the growing con-cerns of government officials, practitioners, aca-demics and many other stakeholders on the stra-tegic contribution of agriculture and rural sectors to the recent Indonesian development. The na-tional economic upheaval due to the 1997 Asian financial crisis has contributed at most in reshap-ing the government view on their importance to national economy. Based on the 2003 National Socioeconomic Survey by the Indonesia’s Cen-tral Bureau of Statistics, during the crisis the ag-riculture sector has demonstrated exceptional performance. Before the crisis this sector ab-sorbed around 50 percent of total labour force, albeit its share to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declined to nearly 10 percent and the

farmer’s purchasing power (Nilai Tukar Petani) dropped to 15 percent. In contrast, after the cri-sis the agriculture employment soared nearly three percent and its share to GDP increased up to four percent while the other sectors were re-luctantly recovered (BPS 2003).

Such peculiar events have demonstrated the endurance of agriculture sector in providing al-ternative employment for regenerating income households. Cash crop plantation and agro-business are some of those associated with this performance. At the same time, the rice field cultivation was increasingly worsening because of the increased prices of production factors combined with the prolonged shortage of land ownership (Irawan 2006). Responding to this trend, the government decision to launch agro-

S O C I A L

E Q U I T Y

S E L F

R E L I A N C E

S E L F

S U F F I C I E N C Y

AGROPOLITAN

DEVELOPMENT



politan development policy has obtained right momentum. It reserves the renewed government commitments to promote agriculture and rural sectors as another leading sector of economy alongside manufacturing industries. The reposi-tioning of agriculture role to the national econ-omy is essential not only for building a policy support in improving the living standards of ru-ral communities, but also in anchoring projects and investments for achieving the ultimate goal of agriculture development, i.e. sustainable food security.

From this policy background the government is willing to promote the values of social equity and self-sufficiency. However, the same crisis has also encouraged another value, i.e. self-reliance. This value receives its legal support from the enactment of Law No. 22/1999 about Regional Governance, which emphasises the acknowledgment on decentralised governance and people empowerment in managing local de-velopment. Such democratic atmosphere has provided supporting environment for the growth of one pillar of the agropolitan develop-ment policy, i.e. power devolution to the local governing authorities. Hence, again we can see how the 1997 economic crisis can contribute in fostering self-reliance value in the making of ag-ropolitan development policy.

Another source for investigating the gov-ernment willingness to promote or protect par-ticular values rests on the policy objectives. To some extent, the statement of policy objectives functions as legalised promise, on which the promise of development resides. In the agropoli-tan development policy there are two building blocks of values that represent this promise. The first block of social equity value is represented by the government intentions to redistribute ‘in-come’, ‘welfare’ and ‘basic facilities and infra-structure’, whereas the second block of self-reliance value is represented by the keywords of ‘decentralised initiatives’, ‘the empowerment of rural communities’ and ‘the strengthening of rural institutions’.

Meantime, the absence of keywords relating to self-sufficiency value cannot be viewed as the government ignorance on its significance to ag-riculture development. There are at least two reasons of its disappearance. First, the pursuit of self-sufficiency in agriculture production is re-garded as a long-term goal involving inter-sectoral and interregional problem-solving ap-proaches. Because this issue is complex and mul-

tidimensional, the ignorance of comprehensive actions combined with the excessive desire for obtaining immediate result is unlikely to sustain policy success. For instance, in mid 1980s Indo-nesian farmers achieved self-sufficiency in rice production supported by highly protective poli-cies such as subsidies, micro-credit and govern-ment control on rice distribution. However, this success story only demonstrated the fulfilment of national minimum amount of rice production, but failed to upgrade the domestic farmers’ wellbeing. Those protective policies could not shield the farmers from market pressures, which emerged in many forms like the fluctuated prices of production factors, the increase of low-price imported agriculture commodities and the ex-pansion of urban land-use to rural areas. As a result, such achievement contradicted to the problems of rural deprivations that remained exist (Irawan 2006).

Second, the governing period is often con-sidered as a constraint why the government offi-cials deliberate their policies. This means that social, economic, and political changes sur-rounding this period are likely to contribute in directing the practices of governance. For in-stance, under the more democratic era following the fall of centralised-authoritarian regime in 1998, public transparency and accountability have been the heart of contemporary public governance in Indonesia. The inability of gov-ernment officials to complete particular public services will not only affect to individual reputa-tion and institutional credibility, but probably will increase public distrusts. In this sense, the reluctance of government officials and institu-tions to promote self-sufficiency value is plausi-ble. From another perspective such attitude is viewed inseparable from the increased tension of political pressures surrounding the government agencies. It is very often that they are being trapped in the middle of political bargains by the number of interest groups, thus the policy values can be regarded as part of government politics. For instance, in recent years the GOI has re-mained importing rice although the domestic production can meet the minimum level of con-sumption. Such peculiar practice then has raised broad hesitation of that the agropolitan devel-opment policy cannot be counted for promoting self-sufficiency value (Pikiran Rakyat 2003).

So far the prominence of these three values is favoured by the government in proposing the agropolitan development policy. This emphasis



is needed as part of institutional reform in im-proving agriculture development in Indonesia. As exemplified in the case of Rice Self-Sufficiency Program, the government failure in producing comprehensive actions is predomi-nantly caused by the prevailing partial and sec-toral approaches of development. Hence, build-ing a concrete institutional framework should be inherently taken into account at the preliminary stage of policy making process. Regarding agri-culture development, such recognition will place agriculture sector as a subset of broader eco-nomic development which are interlocking the other sectors (Kawagoe 2004, pp162-163). In this sense, the values of social equity, self-reliance and self-sufficiency will emerge as common commitments among government agencies and other stakeholders for taking shared responsibility to succeeding the imple-mentation of agropolitan development policy.

The interplay between these values has drawn growing concerns from politicians and policymakers following the 1997 economic cri-sis. Although many policies in the past have rec-ognised these values, they were acknowledged as part of bureaucratic language or political rhetoric for appealing policy support. If not, they were being subordinated by profitability and efficiency values, ‘the magical words’ which were fre-quently used by politicians and bureaucrats to highlight their importance on the pursuit of high economic growth and competitive advantages. According to Hill (2000, p.11), during 1980s the Indonesian economy was benefiting from high economic growth, where export promotion, for-eign investment and privatisation were fortified as some of economic jargons intensively pro-nounced by political leaders and senior govern-ment officers to underpin national development strategy. As a result, agriculture and rural devel-opment policies remained marginalised under such government politics.

Therefore, it is no wonder if social equity has drawn much attention from the government. It is reflected in the policy background as part of ‘a lifetime struggle’ in the modern history of Indo-nesian development, on which any governing regime must deal with the persisting problems of regional disparities intertwined with the diverse nature of country’s origins. The empirical chal-lenges of development which emerge in the forms of rural poverty and rapid urbanisation have also soared intensive criticisms over gov-ernment failure in designing appropriate macro-

economic policies (Hill 2000, pp.230-239). Thus, the importance of social equity is asserted in the beginning of policy objectives, where the gov-ernment will provide rural communities equal opportunity to improving their livelihood through the increased provision of facilities and infrastructure (Ditjen Mukim 2004).

This promise is realised in the policy imple-mentation, where the MOA has allocated Rp 100 million per village as revolving fund to sup-port the development of on-farm and off-farm activities, and the MSRI has continued to build roads, bridges, irrigation systems and other rele-vant facilities for supporting the agropolitan de-velopment policy (Soenarno 2004; Antara 2007). The similar commitments have also demon-strated by the current president and parliamen-tary members. The president has reasserted the government will to support the acceleration of equity promotion programs in the Mid-term Development Plan 2004 - 2009, in which the agropolitan development policy is regarded as part of national strategy. Meantime, the policy support from parliamentary members is associ-ated with the policy objectives to increase the farmers’ wellbeing (Setneg 2006; Republika 2007).

On the other hand, the values of self-reliance and self-sufficiency are less favoured by the gov-ernment, mainly because they can spread con-flicting and contradictory practices, and particu-larly for self-sufficiency, its promotion seems to be unrealistic vis-à-vis the existing government capacity and government politics. In the case of self-reliance, the government has demonstrated a strong commitment to encourage democratisa-tion at all levels of government (Setneg 2006), from which the implementation of self-governing practice has obtained a strong support from the top executive of government structure (Ditjen Mukim 2004). However, the government has also noticed the lack of government capacity at the central and local levels in providing ade-quate amount of funding and personnel, devel-oping and managing appropriate agropolitan projects, and coordinating the implementation of these projects (Pikiran Rakyat 2003; Repub-lika 2007). Also the lack of rural institutions ca-pacity for conducting self-governing practice is also questioned, mainly because they keep main-taining highly dependencies on central govern-ment projects and assistance. Although the local development projects are proposed from below,



the final approval remains on the hands of cen-tral government.

Finally, the promotion of self-sufficiency in this policy is less dominant than the first two. Self-sufficiency in food production is a long-term objective which is determined by the reali-sation of social equity and self-reliance values. In addition, achieving self-sufficiency in food pro-duction cannot be confined in the agropolitan districts only. According to Soenarno (2004), by 2035 the Indonesian population is predicted will achieve 400 million. This condition will lead to the food crisis since the problems of low pro-ductivity level of and the limited market penetra-tion of domestic agriculture products are not resolved. As a consequence, the dependencies on imported agriculture products will remain high. Moreover, the realisation of self-sufficiency value seems unrealistic, because there is less concern from the government in initiating land reform policy to provide sufficient amount of land cultivation, and promoting agro-industries to provide affordable agriculture production fac-tors (Deptan 2006; Irawan 2006).

CONCLUSION To sum up, social equity value by far can be

regarded as the most dominant value in the ag-ropolitan development policy in Indonesia. Its emergence seems to represent the real govern-ment will in this policy. However, by looking back at its historical background the policy en-actment is inseparable from political manoeuvre and socioeconomic change surrounding the pol-icy-making process. Such government undertak-ings demonstrate how the logical reasons for the enactment of agropolitan development policy have been built by using case-by-case judgment approach (casuistry). This approach proposes a moral taxonomy in response to the features of particular conditions (Thacher & Rein 2004, p.476). The moral taxonomy is represented by the promotion of equal redistribution of facilities and infrastructure to rural communities for im-proving their living standards. By putting this moral taxonomy into the real conditions of rural backwardness, the government builds arguments for shaping the willingness to pay much atten-tion to agriculture and rural development. In this sense the government politics for relieving pub-lic uncertainties by favouring policies that sup-port rural livelihood in which most of popula-tion rely on meets its target, so that the govern-ment can obtain increased public trusts. How-

ever, whether the policy is really intended to im-prove rural livelihood is another question. It is required further research to investigate the effec-tiveness and impacts of agropolitan development policy in upgrading the standard of living of ru-ral communities and the capacity of rural institu-tions.

REFERENCES

BPS, see Badan Pusat Statistik (the Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics)

Depkimpraswil, see Departemen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah (the Ministry of Settle-ment and Regional Infrastructure, MSRI)

Deptan, see Departemen Pertanian (the Ministry of Agriculture, MOA)

Ditjen Mukim, see Direktorat Jenderal Permukiman (the Directorate General of Settlement)

Pusdata DPU, see Pusat Data dan Informasi Depar-temen Pekerjaan Umum (Data Resources Centre of the Ministry of Public Works)

Setneg, see Sekretariat Negara (the State Secretary Office)

Andri, KB 2006, ’Perspektif pembangunan wilayah pedesaan’ (Rural development per-spectives), Inovasi, vol. 6, no. 18.

Antara 2007, Deptan kucurkan bantuan Rp 100 juta kepada setiap desa (The Ministry of Agricul-ture has endorsed financial assistance of Rp 100 million per village), Antara, Jakarta, viewed 26 September, 2007, <http://www.antara.co.id/arc/2007/8/26/deptan-kucurkan-bantuan-rp100-juta-kepada-setiap-desa/>.

Apriyantono, A 2007, Arahan umum Menteri Per-tanian pada Rapat Koordinasi Percepatan Pem-bangunan Pertanian Wilayah Kalimantan (The public speech of Minister of Agriculture on Regional Coordination Meeting for Accel-erating Agriculture Development in Kali-mantan), Departemen Pertanian, Jakarta, viewed 9 August, 2007, <http://pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/ind/pdffiles/Pidato_Mentan_KLMN_27-28-02-07.pdf>.

Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pertanian 2002, Rencana operasional pengem-bangan kawasan agropolitan (Operational plan



for developing agropolitan district), Depar-temen Pertanian, Jakarta.

Badan Pusat Statistik 2003, Survei sosial ekonomi nasional 2003 (The 2003 national socioeco-nomic survey), Badan Pusat Statistik, Ja-karta.

Botterill, LC 2004, ’Valuing agriculture: balanc-ing competing objectives in the policy process’, Journal of Public Policy, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 199-218.

Christaller 1979, Guidelines for rural centre planning, United Nations.

Departemen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah 2006, Konsepsi agropolitan (Agropoli-tan conceptualisation), Departemen Per-mukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah, Jakarta, viewed 9 August, 2007, <http://www.pu.go.id/ditjen_mukim/agro/sekilas/Konsepsi%20Agropolitan.pdf>.

Departemen Pertanian 2006, Waktunya sediakan lahan abadi pertanian (It is time for providing eternal agriculture farmland), Departemen Pertanian, Jakarta, viewed 26 September, 2007, <http://www.litbang.deptan.go.id/berita/one/404/>.

Direktorat Jenderal Permukiman 2004, Sekilas agropolitan (Agropolitan at a glance), Depar-temen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah, Jakarta, viewed 26 September, 2007, <http://www.pu.go.id/ditjen_mukim/agro/index.asp?action=Menu_Sekilas&go=pengembangan>.

Friedmann, J & Douglass, M 1978, ‘Agropolitan development: towards a new strategy for regional planning in Asia’, in F Lo & K Salih (eds), Growth pole strategy and regional development policy: Asian experiences and alterna-tive approaches, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Hill, H 2000, The Indonesian economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Irawan, A 2006, Adakah Prestasi Makro Ekonomi Pertanian Kita? (Do we have any macroeco-nomic achievement regarding agriculture development?), Berita Iptek, Jakarta, viewed 20 September, 2007, <http://www.beritaiptek.com/zberita-

beritaiptek-2006-09-20-Adakah-Prestasi-Makro-Ekonomi-Pertanian-Kita.shtml>.

Kawagoe, T 2004, ‘The political economy of rural development in Indonesia’, in T Aki-yama & DF Larson (eds), Rural development and agricultural growth in Indonesia, the Philip-pines and Thailand, Asia Pacific Press, Can-berra ACT.

Lo, F & Salih, K 1981, ‘Growth-poles, agropoli-tan development, and polarization reversal: the debate and search for alternatives’, in WB Stohr & DRF Taylor (eds), Development from above or below?: the dialectics of regional planning in developing countries, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Lukitaningsih 2004, ’Minimalkan kelemahan ka-wasan agropolitan’ (Minimising the weak-nesses of agropolitan districts), Kebijakan, vol. 1, no.1, viewed 9 August, 2007, <http://www.pu.go.id/Sekjen/Puskabijak/warta/web_001/kajian_2_ed1.htm>.

Pikiran Rakyat 2003, Fasilitasi pemda belum terarah: pengembangan agropolitan masih menghadapi kendala (The facilitation from local gov-ernments remains unclear: the agropolitan development is still in crossroads), Pikiran Rakyat, Jakarta, viewed 26 September, 2007, <http://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/cetak/1103/08/0603.htm>.

Pusat Data dan Informasi Departemen Peker-jaan Umum 2006, Agropolitan sebagai strategi pembangunan kawasan perdesaan berimbang (Agropolitan as a balanced rural develop-ment strategy), Departemen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah, Jakarta, viewed 9 August, 2007,<http://www.kimpraswil.go.id/index.asp?link=Humas/news2003/ppw2903061CKA.htm>.

Republika 2007, Pengembangan kawasan agropolitan belum optimal (The development of agro-politan districts has not been optimised), Republika, Jakarta, viewed 6 October, 2007,<http://www.republika.co.id/koran_detail.asp?id=280314&kat_id=286>.

Rustiadi, E & Hadi, S 2006, Pengembangan agropoli-tan sebagai strategi pembangunan perdesaan dan pembangunan berimbang (Agropolitan devel-opment as a strategy for rural development and more balanced development), Direk-



torat Jenderal Cipta Karya Departemen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah, Ja-karta, viewed 9 August, 2007, <http://ciptakarya.pu.go.id/project/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=5>.

Sekretariat Negara 2006, Keterangan pemerintah tentang kebijakan pembangunan daerah di depan Sidang Paripurna DPD-RI (The official presidential speech about regional devel-opment policy in the Plenary Assembly of the Indonesian Regional Representative Council), Sekretariat Negara, Jakarta, viewed 26 September, 2007, <http://www.indonesia.go.id/id/index.ph

p?option=com_content&task=view&id=1759&Itemid=701>.

Soenarno 2004, Pengembangan kawasan agropolitan dalam rangka pengembangan wilayah (The de-velopment of agropolitan district within regional development framework), Depar-temen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah, Jakarta, viewed 26 September, 2007, <http://www.pu.go.id/ditjen_mukim/agro/berita/kaw_agro.asp>.

Thacher, D & Rein, M 2004, ‘Managing value conflict in public policy’, Governance: An In-ternational Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 457-486.

CONTESTING VALUES IN AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN INDONESIA

Documents

Transcript of CONTESTING VALUES IN AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN INDONESIA