hdca 2012_batik cluster institutionalisation_prihadi nugroho
Post on 30-Oct-2014
54 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS ON BATIK CLUSTER INSTITUTIONALISATION IN
SURAKARTA MUNICIPALITY: A REVIEW OF LOCAL CLUSTER POLICY
Prihadi Nugroho
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University
Faculty of Spatial Planning, Technische Universität Dortmund
Abstract
Cluster policies implemented in Indonesia for the past decades look still far from its primary goal to
improve regional competitiveness nationwide. Although cluster approach is promising theoretically,
its practicalities rely on responsiveness variations of local industries and communities to actualise it.
As a result, conflicts are likely to occur when uniform cluster policies applied on different localities.
Local institutional framework, however, plays an important role in directing cluster growth. It carries
out a set of social norms, formal and informal rules, and organisations in a society required for
supporting cluster activities. Substantially, it forms local capabilities in accumulating stakeholders,
types of industries, and resources available to promoting cluster competence and performance. In
this paper I would like to examine how different configuration of local institutions of similar cluster
organisations may result in different pathways to grow. By taking up two case studies of batik cluster
in Kampung Batik Laweyan and Kampung Batik Kauman – both in Surakarta Municipality – in
comparison, I have found that normative social construction and historical values persisting in each
kampung (urban village) strongly determine whether respective cluster policy can be adapted or not.
In the case of Kampung Batik Laweyan government’s cluster-related programs often fails to be
executed easily due to high resistence of local cluster and community members. Its social structure
was made up by a plenty of juragan besar batik (large batik entrepreneurs) which carried out anti-
government dominance in nature. They created elitic group network which has been ruling in both
social and economic life of Kampung Batik Laweyan. In contrast, the social structure of Kampung
Batik Kauman has inherited traditional Javanese Monarchy patronage (Kraton Solo) combined with
Islamic values preference, which created aristocratic-styled governance. As a result, the strong
influences of charismatic leader are useful to nurturing community cooperation and empowerment.
Therefore, it can be concluded that local institutional pattern, leadership style, and voluntary
collective action are determinants for building up successful batik cluster institutionalisation to
support local cluster policy.
Keywords: cluster policy, batik industry, local institutions, social construction, Surakarta Municipality
I. INTRODUCTION
For the past decades cluster policy has been panacea for both central and local governments
in Indonesia to boost economic growth. On one hand, many experts and practitioners including the
governments are confident with its reliability to increasing national and regional competitiveness.
This refers to Porter’s thesis which promotes the concentration of inter-industrial functional linkages
2
in certain locations in order to increase total productivity and innovation. Through open competition
supported by collective cooperation, firms and institutions within cluster are capable of producing
national and/or regional competitiveness. The key point is the alliance of firms and stakeholders
within certain industry will unleash competitive accumulation entirely (Asheim, Cooke and Martin,
2006; Belussi, 2006). On the other hand, cluster approach is prescribed for enhancing domestic
industrial restructuring. As we have already concerned, one of the classical problems of Indonesia’s
industrial development since 1970s is footlose industry phenomenon. Following the endorsement of
Laws No. 1 Year 1967 about Foreign Capital Investment, many multinational companies contributed
to national economy through foreign direct investments (FDI). Regardless of their positive impacts
on economic growth, they have created missing domestic inter-industrial linkages. The situation has
got worsened with industrialisation policies during New Order era (1967 – 1998) which encouraged
broad-based spectrum and outward-looking oriented industries, through which large manufacturing
industries (LIs) were more favourable to raise export growth (Siahaan, 2000).
Now the question is whether cluster policy suitable to Indonesian context. Actually there are
many conditions that may impede its implementation. First, the composition of manufacturing
industry in Indonesia is dominated by small and medium industries (SMIs). According to Ministry of
Industry or Kemenperin (2010), until 2009 the number of SMIs was 3.7 million firms (99.9%)
compared to LIs with 2.8 thousand firms (0.1%). In terms of employment structure, SMIs absorbed
more than eight million workers (57.7%) while LIs was about 5.9 million workers (42.3%). In contrast,
the output comparison between SMIs and LIs showed Rp 140 billion (25%) and Rp 420 billion (75%).
Such situation tells us about intra-industrial discrepancy in labour productivity. Second, the
locational distribution of firms is uneven and concentrated in Java-Bali Islands. Around 75% of firms
are located in this area and dominated by capital intensive and service industries. On the contrary,
the outer Java-Bali areas mostly comprise extractive industries of cash crop plantation and mining.
Apparently, Java-Bali has remained attractive for investment and job creation in manufacturing
industries since the late 1960s. Third, infrastructure provisions for industrial development are
unequal and vary across the nation. Even in Java Island there is a gap between northern and
southern regions, particularly the level of service of road, electricity, telecommunication, port and
terminal. The northern part is more well-equipped and accessible than the opposite. Fourth, the lack
of local institutional capacity remains problematic to support industrial development. Obstacles in
bureaucratic services, regulations, entrepreneurships, and human resources upgrading are still not
overcome satisfactorily. Concerned with all those situations, the implementation of cluster policies
at both central and local levels needs to be questioned, however, particularly related to the creation
of inter-industrial linkages horizontally and vertically as well as inter-regional linkages.
Porterian cluster theory requires transportation and communication access sufficiency. It
comes from assumption that the working of free market mechanism needs open channels for
ensuring easy flows of information, skilled workers, resources, and trade transactions. For example,
at global level cluster works on high technology industries such as automotives, biotechnology, and
information technology. At national level it also works the case of Sillicon Valley (US) and Emilia-
Romagna (Italy). But when it will be adopted into local level, the accessibility requirement is often
not fulfiled yet. In Indonesia unequal infrastructure provisions have become the major obstacle for
industrial cluster development. In addition, regional variations are quite high in terms of geographic,
demographic, economic and sociocultural conditions. Hence, the good understanding on such a
differentiation must be done first to modify cluster concept suitable to local context. In this sense,
local institutional framework plays a significant role in shaping regional performance. It deals not
3
only with bureaucratic issues, regulations and local government capacity, but also traditional values
and social norms which underpin the establisment of rules of the game and interactions among
industrial stakeholders and related institutions.
This paper aims to examine cluster policy practice at local level with focus on cluster
community responsiveness. Two case studies are selected i.e. Kampung Batik Laweyan and Kampung
Batik Kauman, both located in Surakarta Municipality. The study was undertaken for four months
from December 2011 to April 2012 and utilising qualitative approach. A series of interview, direct
observation and questionnaire completed for data collection, involving 26 respondents (interview)
and 40 firms (questionnaire). Both cases feature traditional batik cluster based on SMIs and cottage
industries (CIs) and each located in the old kampung (urban village settlement) with long-standing
historical values and traditions. Both kampung-based batik clusters were originated from typical
socioeconomic traditions of society which have naturally existed since 1500s (Kampung Batik
Laweyan) and 1800s (Kampung Batik Kauman). However, as Surakarta Government recognised them
into public policy – Kampung Batik Laweyan in 2004 and Kampung Batik Kauman in 2006 – many
conflicts have emerged to (re-)direct further developments. On government side, the tensions come
from misinterpretations between government agencies to actualise cluster approach and the
prevailing project-oriented style of policy making process. On cluster community side, the potential
conflicts are created from skeptical perspectives in society against cluster development programs.
Therefore, the roles of community-based organisations and social institutions are pivotal to
determining cluster development. The lessons gained from the field are expected to feedback cluster
policy formulation at both central and local levels.
II. KAMPUNG-BASED BATIK CLUSTER POLICY IN SURAKARTA MUNICIPALITY
The introduction of batik cluster policy in Surakarta Municipality started gradually and did
not directly focus on cluster actualisation. Formally, Kampung Batik Laweyan was introduced in 2004
while Kampung Batik Kauman in 2006. At the first time the government promoted both kampung as
conserved cultural heritage sites instead of cluster areas. They present a rich historical architecture
manifested into old buildings and traditional kampung nuance. Despite their similarities, the social
background underlying in their existence is very different creating distinguished foundations for local
institutional pattern making.
Initially, the legal basis for Kampung Laweyan as cultural heritage site was Mayor Decree No.
646/116/I/1997 dated 31st November 1997 about the Endorsement of Old Historical Buildings and
Sites in Surakarta Municipality. This regulation was backed up with Ministerial Regulation of the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism No. PM.03/PW.007/MKP/2010 about the Endorsement of Laweyan
Site as Conserved Cultural Materials, Sites or Areas. These regulations emphasized on protected
cultural asset rather than socioeconomic potentials as batik production centre. Physical protection
and revitalization has been encouraged more than batik industry potentials. After seven years
Kampung Laweyan was introduced by Surakarta Government as batik cluster area on 25th September
2004 with focus on batik tourism promotion while Kampung Kauman in 2006. Such cluster policy
relates to the long-term local development vision and mission which promote Surakarta Municipality
as cultural city of Javanese civilization centre, as formalized in Local Government Regulation No. 2
Year 2010 about Long-Term Development Plan of Surakarta Municipality Year 2005 – 2025. Hence,
Surakarta now has two leading batik clusters separated only 2.7 kms on distance (Figure 1).
4
As government attention to batik promotion intensifies along with greater enthusiasms from
the public, in fact there are no integrated policies and programs for enhancing kampung-based batik
cluster development. So far the government has undertaken kampung improvement and community
empowerment programs. For example, the government has spent for the building of site signage,
information board, street lighting and road improvement in each kampung. Such attempt is directed
to beautify kampung appearance as attractive tourism destination. The community empowerment
was realised through the creation of independent community-based organization (CBO). In Kampung
Batik Laweyan there is Forum Pengembangan Kampung Batik Laweyan (FPKBL) while in Kampung
Figure 1.
Location of Kampung Batik Laweyan and Kampung Batik Kauman
5
Batik Kauman is Paguyuban Kampung Wisata Batik Kauman (PKWBK). Moreover, a number of
government agencies have also allocated sectoral programs to support both batik clusters as the
pilot areas of prospective tourism destination (Table 1).
Table 1.
Local Government Programs Related to Batik Cluster Development in
Kampung Batik Laweyan dan Kampung Batik Kauman
No. Agency Programs Remarks
1. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah or BAPPEDA (Local Planning Authority)
Establishment of Forum for Economic Development and Employment Promotion (FEDEP)
Trainings on natural dyeing materials
Formed under Mayor Decree No. 500.05/02 – E/I/2009 as a government’s think tank responsible to policy formulation, including batik cluster development
Organised by Unit Pengelola Teknis Daerah or UPTD (Technical Management Unit) Solo Techno Park under coordination of Research and Development Division
2. Dinas Tata Ruang Kota or DTRK (Spatial Planning Agency)
Site revitalisation Aimed at improving cultural heritage site physically
3. Dinas Perindustrian dan Perdagangan or Disperindag (Industry and Trade Agency)
Providing batik production equipments
Trainings on industrial skills
Encouraging firms‘ participation in exhibition
Allocated regularly based on needs assessment
4. Dinas Koperasi dan UMKM (Cooperatives, Micro, Small and Medium Businesses Agency)
Trainings on entrepreneurship skills
Allocated regularly based on needs assessment
5. Dinas Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata or Disbudpar (Culture and Tourism Agency)
Promoting cultural events including batik festival
Facilitating the development of (new) tourism destinations
The programs are routinely coordinated with ASITA (travel bureau association), PHRI (hotel and restaurant owners association), event organizer, and other tourism stakeholders
6. Badan Lingkungan Hidup or BLH (Environmental Management Agency)
Promoting green production technology
Providing communal liquid waste facility (IPAL)
The provision of IPAL funded by GTZ Pro LH
Source: Analysis (2012)
6
Unfortunately, those programs above are executed partially showing individual sectoral
programs instead of integrated ones. Based on interviews with those agencies’ senior officers, they
all complained about missing understanding and coordination on batik cluster development. Each
agency perceived cluster concept differently and treated it by matching their routine programs with
committed cluster development objectives. This means that cluster policy does not work to integrate
varying government programs with cluster’s needs assessment. For example, Dinas Koperasi dan
UMKM classifies cluster as Kelompok Usaha Bersama (KUB) or Collective Business Group focusing on
business development support; Badan Lingkungan Hidup (BLH) considers sentra industri (industrial
district) because of production similarities; and Dinas Perindustrian dan Perdagangan justifies
cluster with one village one product (OVOP) concept. Such different perceptions among public
agencies create difficulties in understanding what cluster should be and how it could be better
developed. Coordination meetings inside the government cannot be expected to result in consensus
on cluster development. Even though each agency commits to support it, in fact they promote their
own routine duties and programs as business as usual. As a result, many programs are overlapping,
poorly managed, and unsustained for enhancing cluster activities.
Testimonies from business players are more shocking. Based on interviews taken from batik
producers and traders, they raised long-standing issues and problems criticizing on government
performance. First, they behave skeptical towards government roles on batik cluster development.
This can be understood from some expressions as follows:
Batik players‘ survival capacity is determined by their own hard-working and preserverance
attitude rather than having government backups;
Government agencies are viewed self-oriented because they tend to prioritise their own
routine programs to meet organisational performance;
Government programs are often not transparent, off targets, and unsustained because of
ineffective monitoring and evaluation;
Incomplete public participation ranging from planning to evaluation phases causes
government programs incompliance with actual needs.
Second, business players do not care about any government proposals to advance batik
cluster. Cluster, OVOP, and the likes are buzzwords without significant meanings if it cannot meet
their profit-oriented behaviour and business sustainability. In fact, they will participate and support
government programs as long as they can obtain concrete impacts on their livelihood upgrading.
Third, business players expect government incentives to ease their business activities. Some
issues underlined here are:
Tax deduction, especially Pajak Bumi dan Bangunan (PBB) or building/property ownership
tax. This problem is often raised by the old building owners. As cultural heritage site
endorsement applies, residents in both Kampung Batik Laweyan and Kampung Batik Kauman
are exerted to preserve their old buildings. This policy makes them to spend extra money for
building maintenance and higher PBB charge;
Interest rate reduction of banking loans. More than 90% batik players in Surakarta come
from SMIs. They are always complaining about bank conditionalities which put on high
interest rate of loans and collateral. Ironically, when they propose their old buildings as
collateral, these buildings are undervalued compared to higher PBB charge;
More public facilities to support batik tourism promotion. More parking areas and public
showroom are required nowadays to support batik cluster development. Originated as old
kampung settlements, both Kampung Batik Laweyan and Kampung Batik Kauman have very
7
limited road access and densely populated buildings. This makes the building owners who
are batik producers and traders are unable to provide adequate parking services to visitors.
Thus, public showroom is also required to accelerate batik promotion and marketing
especially for those whose shops or workshops are less accessible;
Limited lands for harvesting natural dyeing plants. As market demand for environmental
friendly batik products increases, batik producers are facing difficulties to collect natural
dyeing materials due to limited supplies. Some large producers build up their own plantation
while the rest keeps using synthetic colouring liquids. To overcome this, they have urged the
government to provide cultivation lands for natural dyeing plantation.
Such circumstance demonstrates that batik cluster policy formulation has not been prepared
properly. It was introduced to the public reflecting a government jargon rather than a sound policy.
In fact, there is no cluster specific policy documents. Even government’s routine development plans,
either BAPPEDA’s comprehensive plans or Dinas‘ sectoral plans, have not explained much in details
about cluster development direction. In other words, cluster concept has been discussed broadly but
it has never been actualised seriously into public policy. Actually along with Kampung Batik Laweyan
and Kampung Batik Kauman there are some batik production centres in Surakarta which are
potentially developed as kampung-based batik cluster such as Kampung Sondakan and Kampung
Bumi. Dealing with such richness of batik cluster potentials, cluster approach needs to be prepared
carefully not only in terms of integrated policy making, but also the policy itself should accomodate
sociocultural uniqueness of each batik cluster. Because the value chains of batik industry cannot be
separated from the influences of local norms and traditions and the practice of informal economy
called ekonomi kerakyatan (society-based economy). In the following sections I will discuss my
preliminary findings focusing on local institutional patterns in both Kampung Batik Laweyan and
Kampung Batik Kauman.
III. THE INSTITUTIONAL PATTERN OF KAMPUNG BATIK LAWEYAN CLUSTER
The main feature of batik cluster in Kampung Laweyan is predominantly shaped by juragan
besar (large entrepreneurs) community. The contemporary social construction exists in Kampung
Laweyan carries out a legacy of long-lasting pride and the greatness of ancestors since the 19th
century. The influences of powerful bourgeois group in the past have persisted until now, creating a
strongly independent and individualistic behaviour inside Laweyan society. Therefore, Laweyan
society is often viewed exclusive, arrogant, and closed from ordinary people.
According to local historian Soedarmono (1987), the social system of Laweyan is formed by
large-scale merchants and middle-class society. The existence of this group deviates from common
Javanese feudalistic social order which classifies society into three groups: priyayi (aristocrat), santri
(Islamic technocrat), and wong cilik (proletarian people). Under this system priyayi group takes the
highest rank in society as the ruling class. The santri group takes the second class and usually works
for the rulers to spread Islamic teachings – under Kraton hegemony (Surakarta Monarchy) this role is
assigned to abdi dalem (the loyal staff) of the King. Wong cilik group takes the lowest class in society
with limited rights and responsibilities. The existence of large-scale batik merchants in Laweyan has
given distinguished influences into the existing social system through the spread of democratic
values, Islam abangan traditions (moderate Islamic principles), and gender equality insights. In
Laweyan the role of women in batik industry is dominant not only work as buruh batik (batik makers)
8
– in batik industry most pembatik tulis (handwritten batik makers with canting equipment) is female
while pembatik cap (stamping batik makers) is male – but also takes control in batik production and
trading.
Both individual and social relations that are prevailing in Laweyan are strongly determined
by gender-biased division of labour in batik production. The role of Mbok Mase – the title given to
female large-scale merchant – takes the highest rank in batik production and trading (public affairs)
and household‘s financial decision making (domestic affairs). Even though men are still regarded as
household leader and get involved at most in social events, their role is symbolic under the shadows
of wife’s control. In batik production the role of husband, called as Mas Nganten, is to prepare and
supervise batik production and trading following his wife direction. At present time even though
most business owners are men, the control and influences of Mbok Mase remain significant
indirectly (Soedarmono, 1987; Ristianti, 2010).
Such social system has implied on the establishment of current dynamic institutional pattern
in Kampung Batik Laweyan. The highly individualism levels shared between business players have
made the decision making power distributed across a number of prominent actors. Conflicts of
interests are frequently occured and decision making process is hardly to achieve consensus. The
government intervention is often ignored and refused because of local resistence over corrupted
practices of government-driven developments. This relates to religious values embedded deeply into
Laweyan society even though they are classified as moderate Islamic followers. Consequently, it is
very often that the role of FPKBL is being trapped in-between continuing individual conflicts, through
which negotiation process is very difficult to complete.
Deadlock situation is commonly brought into the elderly group whose function as a catalyst
for local development initiatives. Hence, the role of elderly group in Laweyan is beneficial to assist
FPKBL in intermediating public aspirations. Another important feature of local institutions in
Laweyan is the working of social control. In spite of the absence of written rules, social norms are
running quite effectively. Even though reward-and-punishment mechanisms are never been stated
Figure 2.
The Distribution of Batik Entrepreneurs in Kampung Batik Laweyan
Kampung Batik Laweyan Boundaries
9
out clearly, those who break up these norms will be excluded socially. Even under competitive
market nowadays, none has behaved deceitfully as indicated by the absence of batik motifs stealing
and skilled workers hijacking, for example. Each entrepreneur is able to build up particular market
segments and networks (Table 2).
Table 2.
The Institutional Pattern of Kampung Laweyan Batik Cluster
No. Elements Prevailing Norms
1. Power structure Elitic group whose power spread into several prominent actors
2. Leadership model The elderly group functions as a catalyst for mediating different interest groups and the role of selected community leaders is to facilitate and execute public consensus
3. Decision making process Open dialogue to pursue public consensus
4. Participatory model Voluntary and individualistic
5. Social relations type Based on family relationships
6. Control mechanism Unwritten social control
7. Cooperation nature Tends to be passive depending on pioneership and prospective benefits that might be collected individually
8. Competition behaviour Highly market segmentation and product differentiation
9. Innovation ability Free expressions on batik motifs and techniques and low product design imitation
10. Normative foundation Islamic teachings and gender equality principles
Source: Analysis (2012)
IV. THE INSTITUTIONAL PATTERN OF KAMPUNG BATIK KAUMAN
In general Kampung Kauman is characterised by kampung santri and batik merchants rather
than batik producers. The origin of batik making is inherited from Kraton Surakarta traditions to abdi
dalem and their wives. Compared to Kampung Laweyan batik products segmented for sandang
rakyat (clothings for ordinary people), the Kampung Kauman ones originated for Kraton’s fashion
demand exclusively. Later the products are marketable for ordinary people too. Until now Kampung
Kauman product design is dominated by traditional batik motifs in compliance with Kraton’s rules. It
is not surprising because the establishment of Kampung Kauman was associated with the placement
of abdi dalem pamethakan (Islamic missionarist) assigned for spreading out Islamic teachings to the
public – this abdi dalem is also known as penghulu (Moslem leader). Penghulu settled closely to
Masjid Agung Surakarta (the Great Mosque of Surakarta), which was built by King Paku Buwono III in
1757. The major role of penghulu is representing the King in spreading out Islamic teachings to the
public – the King is privileged not only as the Great Ruler but also the Great Islamic Leader for the
people, from which he got royal title as Sayyidin Panatagama Khalifatullah. Therefore, the social
construction of local entrepreneurs and society in Kampung Kauman is still determined by mixed
feudalistic system and Islamic teachings, on which paternalistic culture remains existed strongly in
society. The social class of Kampung Kauman creates intermediate group responsible to bridging the
King (the ruler) and the people (Pusponegoro, Soim & Muttaqin, 2007; Andriesna, 2010).
10
The presence of dichotomic role between Mbok Mase and Mas Nganten can also be found in
Kampung Kauman but the power relations and labour division differs from Kampung Laweyan. In
Kauman the female entrepreneurs used to make batik during spare times while waiting for husbands
– the abdi dalem – returned from teaching Islamic materials in mosque. As time changes and so as
the market demand for batik products, Kauman’s Mbok Mase attracted to enter commerciable batik
making in order to gain additional income. This is because the salary of abdi dalem was very small
inadequate to fulfill their daily needs. However, Kauman’s Mbok Mase could not switch easily to
become batik traders without permission from their husbands. This was not only because of the
Figure 3.Distribution of Batik Entrepreneurs in Kampung Batik Kauman
Kampung Batik Kauman Boundaries
11
practices of strong Islamic values and Javanese paternalistic system, but also that the trading license
of batik products in Kauman was privileged to the husbands from the King. Hence, the female
entrepreneurs needed to ask their husbands for getting this license. As a result, the role of Mbok
Mase has greatly relied on Mas Nganten socially and economically. Both in public and domestic
affairs the role of men remains dominating as women’s leader in religious and daily life until now.
Such men-women relational adjustment is in line with both Islamic teachings and Javanese traditions
which suggest women submission to their men in all aspects of life.
With such social system the local institutional pattern of batik cluster in Kampung Kauman is
relatively easier to build coordinated structure since the social power tends to be concentrated onto
certain public figure. Usually this figure is a role model in society and not necessarily come from
elderly group. In Kampung Kauman the Head of PKWBK is a young batik entrepreneur, the successor
of his parents‘ family business, who has royal blood line. His pioneership to advance Kampung
Kauman combined with his family prominence are likely to be the determinants for PKWBK
movements. However, his leadership role is not absolute and encourages democratic togetherness
in nature. Social mobilisation and cooperation between batik players and local residents are easier
to complete due to the positive effects of paternalistic culture. The decision making process can be
executed easily to achieve public consensus because of persisting collectivity values in social order.
This situation leads to peacefully conflict resolution following high solidarity and social cohesion
between stakeholders in Kampung Kauman.
Such circumstance can be observed visually from settlement layout and social interaction
pattern in Kampung Kauman. It is formed with densely populated housing and narrowed road access
connecting entire area. Business cooperation between batik players emerges competitively as
similar batik products are sold in many places at once. This means that product segmentation and
differentation in Kampung Kauman are low, which is sensitive to price fluctuation and opportunistic
behaviour. For those who come from real batik lovers group, this situation is likely to downgrade the
prestigeous values of Kauman‘ batik products (Table 3).
Table 3.
The Institutional Pattern of Kampung Kauman Batik Cluster
No. Elements Prevailing Norms
1. Power structure Concentrated onto public figure
2. Leadership model Selected leader takes full control and coordination
3. Decision making process Open dialogue with mutual consensus
4. Participatory model Voluntary and collective
5. Social relations type Family kinship with dominant paternalistic culture
6. Control mechanism Unwritten social control
7. Cooperation nature Actively following the leader’s coordination
8. Competition behaviour Low product segmentation and differentiation with potentially destructive opportunistic behaviour
9. Innovation ability Traditional-styled batik expressions subject to Kraton rules
10. Normative foundation Mixed Islamic teachings and Javanese feudalistic model
Source: Analysis (2012)
12
V. CONCLUSION
Learning from the cases of Kampung Laweyan and Kampung Kauman, it can be found that
the influences of local values heritage are determining the existence of batik cluster institutional
pattern. The differences between these two are so obvious even though they are separated less
than 3 kms. On one hand, this situation shows that the legacy of batik making traditions, including
the following social order, is able to last for long period and each kampung can possess its unique
batik traditions and motifs. Kampung Laweyan carries out free-style batik traditions, while Kampung
Kauman is identical to traditional Kraton style. This has proven that batik is a media for expressing
typical social order in particular time and place. On the other hand, these local values are also
influential to direct cluster dynamics. This can be observed from the patterns of cooperation,
competition, and innovation shared across the cluster. Even though Kampung Laweyan batik cluster
has emerged and famously recognised earlier, its internal capacity to grow is likely to deal with many
internal conflicts than Kampung Kauman. The immediate obstacle of creating collective cooperation
should be resolved to advance cluster development.
Such distinct local institutional setting should be understood by government agencies for
incorporating cluster concept into public policy domain. The historical record of batik industry
development in each kampung should be recognised and examined carefully before the government
introduces particular cluster policies/programs. The prevailing informal institutional pattern
embedded in each kampung’s social construction cannot be dismissed anyway. It must be
accommodated properly as endogenous factor which determines cluster growth. This means that
any market forces and government interventions cannot be urged for replacing the existing rooted
institutional pattern. One of important variables in the making of local institutional pattern is
leadership style. In both kampung leadership factor still plays great influences in enhancing cluster
development. Therefore, the government should involve local (informal) leaders in formulating
cluster development policy by giving more power in decision making process.
REFERENCES
Andriesna, JM (2010). Keutuhan ruang budaya Kampung Kauman, Surakarta. Tugas Akhir. Semarang:
Jurusan Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota Universitas Diponegoro.
Asheim, B, Cooke, P. & Martin, R. (2006). The rise of the cluster concept in regional analysis and
policy: A critical assessment. Dalam B. Asheim, P. Cooke & R. Martin (Eds.), Clusters and
regional development: Critical reflections and explorations (pp. 1-29). London: Routledge.
Belussi, F. (2006). In search of a useful theory of spatial clustering: Agglomeration versus active
clustering. Dalam B. Asheim, P. Cooke & R. Martin (Eds.), Clusters and regional development:
Critical reflections and explorations (pp. 69-89). London: Routledge.
Kementerian Perindustrian (2010). Rencana strategis Kementerian Perindustrian tahun 2010 – 2014.
Jakarta: Kementerian Perindustrian.
Pusponegoro, M, Soim, M. & Muttaqin, H. (2007). Kauman: Religi, tradisi & seni. Surakarta:
Paguyuban Kampung Wisata Batik Kauman.
Ristianti, NS (2010). Indikasi penilaian signifikansi budaya kawasan bersejarah, bangunan bersejarah
dan aktivitas bersejarah di Kampung Batik Laweyan. Tugas Akhir. Semarang: Jurusan
Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota Universitas Diponegoro.
13
Siahaan, B. (2000). Industrialisasi di Indonesia: Sejak periode rehabilitasi sampai awal reformasi.
Bandung: Penerbit ITB.
Soedarmono (1987). Munculnya kelompok pengusaha batik di Laweyan pada awal abad XX. Tesis.
Yogyakarta: Fakultas Pasca Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada.
top related