Journal of Peasant Studies

Journal of Peasant Studies

Loading... Skip over navigation HELP . PUBLISH WITH US . LIBRARIANS HOME . ABOUT US . CONTACT US Search

in

Browse Publications Aentire site

Z Browse Subjects A-Z

or

Explore

informaworld

Advanced Search

SIGN IN Register | Why Register? | Got a Voucher?

informaworld HOME | SEARCH | BROWSE Issues Latest List Issue earliest latest

prev

issues

Aims & Scope

next

Editorial Board Recommend

Instructions for Authors Mark

Alert

Subscribe Link

Print

Journal of Peasant Studies, Volume 36 Issue 3 2009 Free Special issue - Critical perspectives in agrarian change and peasant studies ISSN: 1743-9361 (electronic) 0306-6150 (paper) Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year Subjects: Development - Soc Sci; Development Studies; Economics and Development; Ethnicity; Rural Development; Publisher: Routledge

●

In order to give pricing details we need to know your country. Please register and/or sign in to identify your country. Sign In

●

Online Sample

●

Search within this journal Choose an Action:

Go

Go

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g916400439~tab=toc (1 of 4)11/12/2009 11:02:57 AM


Editorial note

About this Journal Abstracting & Indexing News & Offers Online Submissions Previous Table of Contents Related Journals

General Information Permissions Information Reprints

Editorial note Page 475 Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles

buy now

Articles Rethinking public policy in agriculture: lessons from history, distant and recent Ha-Joon Chang Pages 477 – 515 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles Landless but not assetless: female agricultural labour on the road to better status, evidence from India S. Garikipati Pages 517 – 545 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles The politics of global assessments: the case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Ian Scoones Pages 547 – 571 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles Land tenure, land law and development: some thoughts on recent debates Willem Assies Pages 573 – 589 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles

FREE

buy now

buy now

buy now

Forum Reading the World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development Tania Murray Li Pages 591 – 592 Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles


buy now


The World Development Report 2008: inconsistencies, silences, and the myth of ‘win-win’ scenarios Carlos Oya Pages 593 – 601 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles The 2008 World Development Report and the political economy of Southeast Asian agriculture Derek Hall Pages 603 – 609 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles Modernising subordination? A South Asian perspective on the World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi Pages 611 – 619 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles

buy now

buy now

buy now

Questioning pathways out of poverty: Indonesia as an illustrative case for the World Bank's transforming countries Noer Fauzi Rachman; Laksmi A. Savitri; Mohamad Shohibuddin buy now Pages 621 – 627 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles Exit from agriculture: a step forward or a step backward for the rural poor? Tania Murray Li Pages 629 – 636 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles Unjustified optimism: why the World Bank's 2008 ‘agriculture for development’ report misses the point for South Africa Thembela Kepe Pages 637 – 643 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles


buy now

buy now


Seeing like an indigenous community: the World Bank's Agriculture for Development Report read from the perspective of postwar rural Guatemala Carlota McAllister Pages 645 – 651 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles The strategic incoherence of development: marketing expertise in the World Development Report Kregg Hetherington Pages 653 – 661 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles

buy now

buy now

Grassroots Voices Food sovereignty Raj Patel Guest Editor Pages 663 – 706 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles

FREE

Book Reviews Book Reviews Madeleine Fairbairn; John Gaventa; Leandro Vergara-Camus; Manon Boulianne; Christopher M. Bacon; Sarah Lyon; Ricardo F. Macip Pages 707 – 724 Abstract | References | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Request Permissions Related Articles

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Accessibility | RSS FAQs in: English . Français . Español . 中文（简体和繁體） © 2009 Informa plc


buy now

This article was downloaded by: [CDL Journals Account] On: 3 November 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912375045] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Peasant Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673200

Questioning pathways out of poverty: Indonesia as an illustrative case for the World Bank's transforming countries Noer Fauzi Rachman a; Laksmi A. Savitri b; Mohamad Shohibuddin c a University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA b Sajogyo Institute, Bogor, Indonesia c Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia Online Publication Date: 01 July 2009

To cite this Article Fauzi Rachman, Noer, Savitri, Laksmi A. and Shohibuddin, Mohamad(2009)'Questioning pathways out of poverty:

Indonesia as an illustrative case for the World Bank's transforming countries',Journal of Peasant Studies,36:3,621 — 627 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03066150903142980 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150903142980

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 36, No. 3, July 2009, 621–627

Questioning pathways out of poverty: Indonesia as an illustrative case for the World Bank’s transforming countries

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:08 3 November 2009

Noer Fauzi Rachman, Laksmi A. Savitri and Mohamad Shohibuddin

The World Development Report 2008 uses Indonesia as an illustrative case for what it calls ‘transforming countries’. The main argument of this paper is that the three pathways out of poverty (commercially-oriented entrepreneurial smallholder farming; rural non-farm enterprise development, and out-migration) prescribed by the Report should be theoretically and empirically questioned because of the possibility of a reverse consequence: the perpetuation of poverty in Indonesia. Keywords: pathways out of poverty; global market; capitalism

[I]f capitalism is thrown out of the door, it comes in through the window. Braudel (1982), Civilization and Capitalism

This paper will critically discuss some claims that the World Development Report 2008 (henceforth, WDR 2008) makes based on its reading of the Indonesian case. In this short commentary we will not examine the applicability of its linear theory of agriculture-for-development, which reminds us of Rostow’s ‘stages of economic growth’, by correcting the data it uses for Indonesia, or adding new data, nor will we criticise the vision that the Report offers, although we believe that vision to be erroneous.1 Our goal is straightforward: to explore how capitalism produces new poverty through the very same pathways that the Report proposes as ways to exit from rural poverty. Indonesia, according to the Report, falls into the category of ‘transforming countries’, in which ‘agriculture is no longer a major source of economic growth, contributing on average only 7 percent to GDP growth, but poverty remains overwhelmingly rural’ (p. 4). It almost qualifies as ‘urbanised’, a category in which ‘agriculture contributes even less to economic growth, 5 percent on average, and poverty is mostly urban. Even so, rural areas still have 45 percent of the poor, and agribusiness and the food industry and services account for as much as one third of GDP’ (p. 4). Indeed Indonesia, ‘already in the transforming category in the Thanks to Tania Li and the two anonymous reviewers for critical comments and suggestions on earlier versions. The usual disclaimers apply. 1 Akram-Lodhi (2008, 1160) argues the Report ‘offers a vision . . . that will consolidate the corporate food regime and the establishment of agrarian capitalism across the worlds of global agriculture’. ISSN 0306-6150 print/ISSN 1743-9361 online Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/03066150903142980 http://www.informaworld.com


622

Noer Fauzi Rachman et al.

1970s, further reduced the share of rural poverty’ (p. 30) in the subsequent decades. Indonesia supported the agriculture sector ‘indirectly through regular devaluations of the exchange rate that provided incentives to its producers of agricultural tradables, and directly through investments of some windfall oil revenues in rural infrastructure, irrigation, agricultural credit, and fertilizer subsidies’. As a result, ‘$1-a-day poverty declined from 47 percent in 1981 to 14 percent in 1996’ (p. 35). The WDR contains twelve references to Indonesia, all of them claiming a successful process of transition, as evidenced by a decline in rural poverty between 1980 and 2001, rapid growth in the non-farm share of rural employment in 1990– 1995, and migration to small and intermediate cities that may offer greater potential than larger cities for poorer rural households. The Report conveys a clear message that Indonesia escaped poverty by design, through policies such as increasing agricultural productivity, investment in agricultural/rural infrastructure, and statesponsored capital lending by the Bank Rakyat Indonesia. These policies, according to the WDR, oriented the rural poor towards three pathways: (i) entering commercial farming by integration into the market for global food and agricultural products, (ii) engaging in waged labour, and (iii) outmigration from the rural economy. But WDR 2008 does not explain which layer of the rural poor has actually entered the global market and accumulated gains, how the connection with the market is constructed, and how outmigration has operated as a strategy for different segments of the rural population. The potential ‘downsides’ of the three pathways need to be explored if we are to understand whether the transformation of Indonesia has indeed increased the wellbeing of the poor, as the Report claims, or perpetuated their poverty. The Report has no systematic way of grasping these ‘downsides’, since it lacks a concept of capitalism as a set of relations that produce poverty as well as wealth (Mosse 2007, 9); indeed, we could not find the word ‘capitalism’ in the Report. We share with Mosse and others the perspective that treats poverty as a consequence of social and economic relations, rather than a static condition. Thus ‘poverty cannot be eradicated . . . on the contrary poverty is continually being created and recreated under the institutions of capitalism’ (Harriss-White 2006, 1241). In order to understand poverty dynamics, it is necessary ‘to examine the relations between the dominant and dominated classes, groups and individual, as it is through their multiple linkages that livelihoods of the poor contribute to the enrichment of the wealthy and thus to the poor’s continuing misery’ (Kay 2005, 327, Kay 2006). Further, we need to understand capitalism ‘historically, structurally, and spatially’, and to situate Indonesia within ‘wider fields of power’, placing the ‘global’ within the ‘local’ (Roseberry 2002, 77). Since integration into global markets produces differential opportunities and constraints, and the poor tend to have less access to favourable ‘pathways’, integration risks to deepen inequality and uneven development. The three pathways out of poverty The Report links discussion of the three pathways out of poverty to the heterogeneity found in the rural labour market, where there are many low-skill, poorly remunerated agricultural jobs and a small number of high-skill jobs; the heterogeneity of the rural non-farm economy where low productivity self- and


The Journal of Peasant Studies

623

wage-employment coexists with employment in dynamic enterprises; and heterogeneity in the outcomes of migration, which lifts some of the rural poor out of poverty but takes others to urban slums and continued poverty (p. 6). The Report seems to imply that this heterogeneity is random, but we propose to examine the ways this heterogeneity is patterned by capitalist relations. The Report argues that non-farm incomes can enhance the potential of farming as a pathway out of poverty, and conversely, that agriculture can facilitate the labour and migration pathways. Writing in the early 1980s in the wake of Indonesia’s ‘green revolution’, Indonesia scholars Sinaga and White (1980) and Wiradi (1983) agree that while this argument is true for Japan in the period 1950 to 1980, the conditions were quite specific. Land reform in Japan had successfully dismantled land concentration, landlessness did not exist anymore, and all layers of the landed, farming population were able to accumulate from onfarm income and invest in building up their farms. Gradually, on-farm surpluses were invested in non-farm activities, and when the non-farm income increased, the surpluses were invested to further expand non-farm activities. The case of Japan shows that when land holding and ownership are not concentrated, and the problem of structural inequality has been resolved, the surpluses from onfarm income do indeed open up pathways to non-farm income. Structural transformation in Japan contributed positively toward the establishment of complementary relations between on-farm, non-farm, and urban sector employment. The Indonesia scholars use the case of Japan to highlight a significant contrast. On the Indonesian island of Java, where a land reform program initiated in the period 1960–1965 was discontinued due to a bloody political struggle (Utrecht 1969, Fauzi 1999), land distribution remained skewed, and the green revolution made the situation worse (Collier et al. 1982, White and Wiradi 1989). The tendency towards increasing inequality in landholding is also true for Indonesia as a whole, as indicated by the Gini Index.2 From 1963 to 1973 the index decreased from 0.55 to 0.52, but by 1983 the index was at 0.55, rising to 0.59 in 1993 (Wiradi 2006). Rather than heterogeneity, Sinaga and White show that the conditions under which farmers shifted to non-farm activities were closely connected with their landholding and ownership. Under the condition of unequal land distribution, only the larger landholders were able to extract surplus from on-farm activities in order to invest in relatively high-return non-farm activities. Further, as Hart (1988) emphasises, diversification to non-farm activities by the rural elite has been stimulated by access to the state not only for subsidised agricultural credit and inputs, but also for licenses and concessions that are often key resources for nonagricultural accumulation. For the landless, in contrast, the transition from on-farm to non-farm activities with very low returns is a symptom of their marginalisation, and a direct result of the way the landed group has accumulated capital at their expense. Even where new income opportunities have been created in rural areas by certain innovations (as in rural transportation), access tends to be limited to members of the upper socioeconomic strata, since developments of this kind almost invariably involve access to capital. 2 The Gini Index is a measurement tool to reflect land distribution of all the landed and landless rural population. The index ranges from 0–1, which is from totally equal to completely unequal land distribution.


624


Sinaga and White (1980) identified agrarian classes in rural Java as (1) rich farmers with landholding of more than 2 ha; (2) middle farmers who possess 40.5–2.0 ha; (3) small farmers who control less than 0.5 ha; and (4) landless. All classes were involved in non-farm activities, but their differential control of land affected their abilities to expand into, and accumulate from, non-farm activities. By far the largest proportion of rural dwellers, 60–70 percent, were landless or owned less than 0.5 ha. This group chronically lacks resources except labour, and forms a reserve army of the underemployed. The rich farmers are able to accumulate, extracting surplus from their on-farm activities to invest both on and off farm. In addition to their control over land, this group has easy access to credit, and benefits from the cheap labour, services, and products supplied by the mass of underemployed. The middle farmers in the second layer are mainly engaged in consolidation, investing the surplus from on-farm activities to secure their total income from on-farm and non-farm sources. Under these highly unequal conditions, landless people in rural Java who ‘diversify’ their income from on-farm to non-farm sources, or migrate to the city, are not moving along a pathway out of poverty, they are merely shifting their location. Their mobility, as Wiradi (1986) argues, is horizontal, not vertical. Wiradi (1986) argues that push factors play a more important role for rural worker outmigration than pull factors from the destination area. In the destination area, these rural workers have to compete with the existing and excessive labour reserve for limited employment. As a consequence, the informal sector in Indonesia’s big cities has grown rapidly, together with overpopulation, unemployment, high crime rate, and slum areas. The conditions of urban life have become so difficult that the cities have begun to experience the ‘push out’ pressures usually associated with rural workers. Wiradi calls this phenomenon de-concentration: a push out process of some part of urban population that produces new fragmentary concentrations in peri-urban areas. Those who are pushed out are not only migrants from rural areas but also members of the urban elite who are thrown out of the city by the capital bias of spatial planning. (Wiradi 2002, 9)

These urban migrants push the peri-urban residents still further out into the countryside, blurring the spatial divide and degrading the environment. Rather than breaking the cycle of poverty, these spatial transformations and movements represent merely a shift in poverty from rural to urban, and back to rural sites. Land grabbing and integration in the global food market To promote employment in agriculture and rural non-farm sectors, the WDR also highlights agribusiness and the food industry as a pathway to escape rural poverty. Noting that ‘participation in modern supply chains can increase farmer income by 10 to 100 percent (Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya)’, the Report recommends that ‘[t]he government and the private sector can help smallholders expand and upgrade their range of assets and practices to meet the new requirements of supermarkets’ (p. 127). The enabling condition, from the perspective of the WDR, is the heterogeneity of the rural world, where ‘[l]arge commercial farmers coexist with smallholders. This diversity permeates the smallholder population as well. Commercial smallholders deliver surpluses to food markets and share in the benefits of expanding markets for the new agriculture of high-value activities’ (p. 25). If the Report recognised the



625

‘downsides’ of global capitalism, it would not present the restructuring of global food and agricultural production as a result of a co-existence. Instead, as argued by Akram-Lodhi (2000), it would emerge as an effect of domination by transnational capital. As transnational capital restructures agricultural production to supply food to segmented markets in the developed market economies, the international agrofood trade becomes a mechanism of economic retrogression, in that essential domestic productive capacity is undermined (Akram-Lodhi 2000, 123; see also McMichael 2007). Indonesian peasants’ participation in ‘modern supply chains’ is normally through contract farming. Various studies in the last two decades have shown the very weak position of peasant contract growers in relation to agribusiness. White (2002) argues that contract farming in Indonesia has forced growers to accept unwanted debt plus its interest, a reduction in their landholdings, and expensive but poor quality housing that they could have built better themselves. Then, they must pay the debt by planting a monoculture crop sold at a price determined by a mechanism that is not transparent. White found that it was only farmers with links to powerful actors that profited from the contract system. They used their ties to obtain the best quality plots, and farmed them using wage labour. They treated contract farming as an investment, and not for daily livelihood. For the poorer farmers, contract farming schemes for various commodities (palm oil, tea, sugar cane, coconut) often made their situation more precarious, gradually degrading their position from landowner to labourer, while trapping them in debt. More recently global capital, often working through domestic corporations, has shown interest in direct acquisition of large expanses of land for agricultural export production. Land grabbing to supply the global food market is an example of ‘accumulation by dispossession’ as recently theorised by Harvey (2003, 2005, 2006), building on Marx’s notion of ‘so-called’ primitive accumulation. Farmers in the targeted areas are separated from their land and transformed into waged labour. In a striking example, GRAIN (2008a) reported on a ‘new global land grab strategy for food and financial security’ (see also von Braun and Meinzen-Dick 2009). The events were triggered by the so-called global food crisis of 2007, in which the price of food staples increased significantly and stayed high for some months. Cash-rich food importing countries responded by ‘ . . . snatching up vast areas of farmland abroad for their own offshore food production and [treating] . . . investment in foreign farmland as an important new source of revenue’ (p. 1). Indonesia is the country with the largest land areas targeted by these processes. GRAIN (2008b, 7), among others, reported a shocking story that the BinLaden Group signed an agreement to invest at least US$4.3bn, on behalf of a consortium of 15 Saudi investors known as the Middle East Foodstuff consortium, to develop 500,000 ha of rice land in Indonesia. . . . The Saudi rice venture is part of a larger agricultural development project involving a total of 1.6 million ha for not only rice but also maize, sorghum, soya beans and sugar cane, much of which will be converted to biofuels.

GRAIN also records that in July 2008, the regional government of Buol, a district of Central Sulawesi Province, announced that South Korea-based PT Agro Energia Indonesia will invest US$2bn in maize plantations in Buol. An agreement has already been reached on the allocation of 10,000 ha of land, and the company is conducting land surveys to increase this to 25,000 ha. These developments deprive

626


local smallholders of access to land, and with it the opportunity to use agriculture as a vehicle for self-provisioning or market production.


Conclusion Large scale land grabs, unfair contracts, and poor returns to rural labour are mechanisms that intensify rural poverty for some rural Indonesians, while enriching others. Integration into global economies is not bad in itself. Much depends upon the terms of integration, which typically reflect the bargaining power of different groups in the rural economy. In place of a narrative of transformation that overlooks the ‘downsides’ of capitalism, we need far more careful and extensive research to examine the processes currently producing wealth, poverty, and inequality in the Indonesian countryside. References Akram-Lodhi, H.A. 2000. The agrarian question in an age of new capitalism. In: J. Toporowski, ed. Political economy and the new capitalism: essays in honour of Sam Aaronovitch. London: Routledge. Akram-Lodhi, H.A. 2008. (Re)imagining agrarian relations? The World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Development and Change, 39(6), 1145–61. Braudel, F. 1982. Civilization and capitalism, 15th–18th century. Vol. 2. The wheels of commerce. New York: Harper and Row. Collier, W.L., et al. 1982. Acceleration of rural development of Java. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 18(3), November. Fauzi, N. 1999. Petani dan penguasa: dinamika perjalanan politik agraria Indonesia. Yogyakarta: INSIST, KPA, Pustaka Pelajar. GRAIN 2008a. SEIZED! The 2008 land grab for food and financial security. Grain Briefing, October 2008. Available from: www.grain.org/briefings/?id ¼ 212-70k [Accessed 8 March 2009]. GRAIN 2008b. SEIZED! The 2008 land grab for food and financial security. Grain Briefing Annex, October 2008. Available from: www.grain.org/briefings_files/landgrab-2008-enannex.pd [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Harriss-White, B. 2008. Poverty and capitalism. Economic and Political Weekly, 1 April, 1241–7. Hart, G. 1988. Agrarian structure and the state in Java and Bangladesh. The Journal of Asian Studies, 47(2), 249–67. Harvey, D. 2003. The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. 2006. Spaces of global capitalism: towards a theory of uneven geographical development. New York: Verso. Kay, C. 2005. Reflections on rural poverty in Latin America. The European Journal of Development Research, 17(2), 317–46. Kay, C. 2006. Rural poverty and development strategies in Latin America. Journal of Agrarian Studies, 6(4), 455–508. McMichael, P. 2007. Globalization and the agrarian world. In: G. Ritzer, ed. The Blackwell companion to globalization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 216–38. Mosse, D. 2007. Power and the durability of poverty: a critical exploration of the links between culture, marginality and chronic poverty. CPRC Working Paper 107. Manchester, Chronic Poverty Research Center. Roseberry, W. 2002. Understanding capitalism – historically, structurally, spatially. In: D. Nugent, ed. Locating capitalism in time and space, global restructuring, politics and identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 61–79. Sinaga, R.S. and B. White. 1980. Beberapa Aspek Kelembagaan di Pedesaan Jawa dalam Hubungannya dengan Kemiskinan Struktural in Alfian et al., eds. Kemiskinan struktural: suatu bunga rampai. Jakarta: Pulsar.



627

Utrecht, E. 1969. Land reform in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 5(3). von Braun, J. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2009. Land grabbing by foreign investors in developing countries: risks and opportunities. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Policy Brief # 13. Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/bp/bp013.asp [Accessed 5 December 2009]. White, B. 2002. Inti dan Plasma: Pertanian Kontrak dan Pelaksanaan Kekuasaan di Dataran Tinggi Jawa Barat. In: T. Li, ed. Proses Transformasi Pedalaman di Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia. White, B. and G. Wiradi. 1989. Agrarian and non-agrarian bases of inequality in nine Javanese villages. In: G. Hart et al., eds. Agrarian transformation: local processes and the state in Southeast Asia. Berkeley, CA and Oxford: University of California Press. Wiradi, G. 1983. Ketenagakerjaan dalam Struktur Agraris di Pedesaan Jawa. In: P. Hagul, ed. Pembangunan Desa dan Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Dian Desa. Wiradi, G. 1986. Landlessness, tenancy and off-farm employment in rural Java: a study of twelve villages. In: R.T. Shand, ed. Off farm employment in the development of rural Asia. National Centre for Development Studies, Australian National University. Wiradi, G. 2002. Dampak Dekonsentrasi Terhadap Hubungan-Hubungan Agraria: Suatu telaah Hipotetis. Paper presented in Konggres Nasional IV Ikatan Sosiologi Indonesia, 29 August 2002, Bogor. Wiradi, G. 2006. Pandangan dan Sumbangan Pemikiran bagi Pengurangan Ketimpangan Penguasaan dan Pemilikan Tanah: Rekomendasi dan Masukan untuk Penyempurnaan Naskah KKPN (Kerangka Kebijakan Pertanahan Nasional). Paper delivered to BAPPENAS, 6 November 2006. World Bank 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Noer Fauzi Rachman is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM), University of California, Berkeley, and former Chairperson of the Consortium for Agrarian Reform, an organisation engaged in land rights advocacy. Laksmi A. Savitri holds a PhD in Rural Sociology from Kassel University, and is a researcher in the Sajogyo Institute, Bogor, Indonesia. Mohamad Shohibuddin is a Junior Lecturer at the Faculty of Human Ecology, Bogor Agricultural University; and researcher in Brighten Institute, Bogor, Indonesia. Corresponding author: [email protected]