collier 1980 declining labour absorption 1878 - 1980 in javanese rice production

OCCASIONAL PAPER TERBITAN KHUSUS

AGRO-ECONOMIC SURVEY Rural Dynamics Study

(Studi Dinamika Pedesaan) Bogor, Indonesia

No. 02

Declining Labor Absorption (1878 to 1980)

In Javanese Rice Production

by

William L. Collier

Presented at the Agricultural Economics Society of South East Asia’s Third Biennial Meeting on

November 27 to 29, 1979 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

March 1980

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ................................................................................................................................ ii Agricultural Involution................................................................................................................. 1 High Yielding Rice Varieties Effect On Labor Use Per Ha Per Crop Season ............................ 7

Labor Use Per Ha Increasing Over Time................................................................................... 9

Javanese Farmers In The 1880's............................................................................................. 19

Yields Per Ha Increasing Over Time........................................................................................ 22 Returns Per Person Declining Over Time................................................................................ 22

Land And Labor Institutions ..................................................................................................... 25

Summary .............................................................................................................................. 29 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF TABLE Table No. 1. Average Labor Use per Ha in Rice Production (not including

harvesting and milling) by Varieties and by Large Farmers and Representatives Farmers in Java in the Wet Season 69/70. ............................. 8

Table No. 2. Percentage Hired and Family Labor Use in Javanese Rice Production. ....................................................................................................... 10

Table No. 3. Percentage and Average Labor Use by Male and Female Workers in Rice Production between 1926 and 1979..................................................... 13

Table No. 4. Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 1923-1930, 1969, and 1978 in Java................................................................. 15

Table No. 5. Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 1923-1930, 1969, and 1978 in Java................................................................. 17

Table No. 6. Daily labor allocation of three Javanese farmers for one year period from February 1886 to February 1887.............................................................. 20

Table No. 7. Average Rice Yields (rough rice)\A in tons per hectares and Kg per Labor Hour for Java in the 1925-1930 period and 1970-1980 period............... 23

Table No. 8. Population Density and Landless Residents in Selected Villages in the Lowland Areas in Java ............................................................................... 26

Table No. 9. Size Distribution of Agricultural Land Ownership by Households in Four Javanese Villages in 1976 and 1978. ...................................................... 27

Table No.10. Land Control in Gondosari Village, Pati Kabupaten, Central Java, 1976. ................................................................................................................ 28

Table No. 11. Areas of Irrigated Agricultural Land Purchased and Sold in the Land Markets by Years in Gemini and Scorpio Villages, East Java, until December 1978................................................................................................ 28

ii

PREFACE Since 1968 Dr. William L. Collier has been associated with the Agro Economic Survey (AES) and the Rural Dynamics Study (RDS). He was deeply involved in the AES’s studies on rice production in the 1969-1972 period, and has assisted the RDS team in East Java in their research on rice production. Dr. Collier has combined the results of the AES research (1969-1973), the RDS studies in East Java (1978-1979), and the published reports of Dutch and Indonesian economists in the 1880’s and the 1920’s – 30’s periods. This comparison of labor use in rice production during this one hundred year period indicates that from 1880 to 1970 the average use of labor per ha per crop remained fairly constant and then appears to have declined between 1970 and 1980.

Although he has presented a substantial amount of data, this report only has what was available before the deadline to publish it in the Malayan Economic Review. The purpose of the Occasional Paper is to present the paper and the extensive appendix which contains the basic information for this report. In fact a number of the tables in the appendix were not included in the analysis because they were not ready by the publishing deadline. Dr. Collier plans a much more extensive paper on labor use in rice production which will include information that is now being compiled. He hopes that researchers will send him comments on this paper which will assist him in preparing his final report on this topic.

I hope that the publication of this Occasional Paper will stimulate debate on labor use in rice production and will illustrate the importance of combining historical data with our present research.

Dr. Rudolf S. Sinaga Head, Rural Dynamics Study

1

Declining Labor Absorption (1878 to 1980) In Javanese Rice Production

William L. Collier1

One of the enduring paradigms on labor absorption in Javanese rice production was formulated by Clifford Geertz in his book Agricultural Involution. The purpose of this paper is to examine this concept of labor absorption and its implications for food policy in Java. In order to do this, we will first examine the involution proposition and compare labor use in rice production at the present time and in the past. Besides this, we believe it is important to understand what has occurred on Java since other regions in Asia are approaching the population densities found in the lowland, rice producing regions of Java. The labor use trends in Java today may be a guide for what occurs in other regions in the future.

Agricultural Involution

Because of Geertz’s style of writing, it is rather difficult to explicitly state his proposition. Perhaps, his main definitions are the following:

Wet-rice cultivation, with it extraordinary ability to maintain levels of marginal labor productivity by always managing to work one more man in without a serious fall in per-capita income, soaked up almost the whole of additional population that Western intrusion created, at least indirectly. It is this ultimately self-defeating process that I have proposed to call agricultural involution.2

This definition implies that over a long period of time, rice production could absorb additional labor without a serious reduction in income per person to these laborers. In Geertz’s view, the process of involution was most visibly apparent in rice growing with the movement toward double cropping, more careful regulation of irrigation water to the fields, careful weeding around the rice plants, selection of each rice grain to be harvested, and the use of hand-pounding in milling the rice.3 Related to the land itself he described the growth of intricate sharecropping arrangements as another aspect of involution.4

Various scholars have attempted to clarify the concept of agricultural involution. First among these individuals is Otto van den Muijzenberg who tested the idea of agriculture involution in the Philippines. He notes that “although there has been some criticism of minor points of the concept and theory, no fundamental critical discussion has yet taken place”.5 In this context, it

1 Associate, Agricultural Development Council, Inc., assigned to the Bogor Agriculture University,

Bogor, Indonesia. 2 Clifford Geertz, Agricultural Involution, University of California Press, 1963, pp. 80. 3 Geertz, op. cit., p-101 4 Geertz, op. cit., p-100 5 Otto. D. van den Muijzenberg, “Involution or Evolution in Central Luzon”, in Cultural Anthropology in

the Netherlands, edited by Peter Kloss and Henri J.M. Classen, 1975, p-141.

2

may seem obvious, but van den Muijzenberg made a contribution just by separating the two concepts of “agricultural involution” and “shared poverty”. He classified agricultural involution as the production side and shared poverty as the consumption (or distributive) side of the situation in rural Javanese villages.6 It may be easier to test these concepts if they are separated in this manner; one being production oriented and the other consumption/distribution oriented.

A major oversight on the part of Geertz is the fact that he apparently does not include off-farm labor by farmers in his analytical framework. In most of the recent studies on Javanese agriculture it has been definitely shown that the rice farmers secure a significant share of their income from other sources, and if this other income is included, then the average income per man may have increased rather than remained constant or decreased as Geertz speculated. In summarizing his work, van den Muijzenberg found the following:

Thus the third level at which we should consider the involution/evolution question requires consideration of all the resources both agricultural and non-agricultural, local and non-local, available to the villagers. As long as a significant proportion of their income comes from outside the village these considerations must involve other terms than just the productivity per hectare of sawah. Geertz fails to adopt this approach even when he is dealing only with the sawah as a resource. His conclusions on evolution in the Javanese sawah ecosystems are based solely on rice production and he does not include in his calculation even the yields from second crops (palawija) let alone the land rent from the wages earned at the sugar mills using the sawah land.7

Another aspect of the problem when trying to clarify the Geertz proposition is that he never seems to mention that non-family labor in rice production is extremely important. As is shown in various tables in this paper, hired labor makes up between 40 to 90% of the total labor input per ha, even for small rice farms. Yet, Geertz apparently does not recognize this essential aspect of Javanese rice production.

In what may be the only time he specifically mentioned labor per unit of land, he stated that:

This complex of systematic characteristics-settled stability, “medium” rather than “substratum” nutrition, technical complexity and significant overhead labor investment – produce in turn what is perhaps the sociologically most critical feature of wet-rice agriculture; its marked tendency (and ability) to respond to a rising population through intensification; that is, through absorbing increased numbers of cultivators on a unit of cultivated land.8

Consequently, he seems to be indicating that involution occurs both by intensification per unit of land and extensification of the irrigation system. Yet, he states that the extensification was over a 1,400 year period.9 It would seem to this author that this means constructing these systems over hundreds of years and would therefore have very little effect on a farmer’s labor allocation each season. Also, since most of the irrigated fields have been double cropped for a long time, we will concentrate on agricultural involution per unit of land, rather than increasing the number

6 Muijzenberg, ibid, p-143. 7 Muijzenberg, ibid, p-151. 8 Geertz, op. cit., p-32. 9 Geertz, op. cit., p-36.

3

of crops per year per unit of land. Furthermore, he stated that “But the pattern of ecological pressure here increasingly encouraged the opposite practice: working old plots harder rather than establishing the new ones”.10 At this point we must recognize that if a farmer increases the number of crops he plants in a field there will obviously be increased labor use per unit per year. However, most of the irrigation investment in Java since 1967 has been for rehabilitation and not for new systems. Although we do not try to prove it in this paper, we believe that the quality of these irrigation systems 50 years ago and today are relatively the same. What has changed is that the high yielding varieties have a shorter growing period. In a few cases farmers have planted rice 3 times per year in the same field but this seems to strengthen our argument to concentrate on labor use per crop (or season) per ha in testing the proposition of increasing absorption of labor in rice production over time. In another section he developed another of the related propositions which was about yields per ha:

In addition to improving the general irrigation system within which a terrace is set, the output of most terraces can be almost indefinitely increased by more careful, fine comb cultivation techniques; it seems almost always possible somehow to squeeze just a little bit more out of even a mediocre sawah by working it just a little bit harder.11

Consequently, a major part of his concept on “agricultural involution” includes the proposition of increasing yields over time due to increased levels of labor inputs.

Related to this increase in yields, when considering the physical side of rice production, he suggested the following proposition:

Because even the most intense population pressure does not lead to a breakdown of the system on the physical side though it may lead to extreme impoverishment limited only by the capacity of those who exploit returns for their labor.12

Therefore, Geertz includes declining per capita returns to labor in his “involution” concept. Yet, he is discussing yields and in the same sentences turns to declining returns. It indicates that he is thinking only in terms of the yield and not paying a wage to the laborers.

A further aspect of the proposition is concerned with informal institutions in the rural villages. Geertz extended his ideas of involution from the rice fields to just about all activities in rural Javanese villages, especially in the low land, well-irrigated sugar cane areas. In his view, the village responded to the intrusion of sugar cane, and the land lease system under the Dutch in the following manner:

The mode of its (village) adaptation was again involutional. The basic pattern of village life was maintained, in some ways even strengthened, and the adjustment to the impingements of high capitalism affected through the complication of established institutions and practices. In land tenure, in crop regime, in work organization, and in the less directly economic aspects of social structure as well, the village faced the problems posed by a rising population, increased monetization, greater dependence on the market, mass

10 Geertz, op. cit., p-32. 11 Geertz, op. cit. p-35. 12 Geertz, op. cit. p-33.

4

labor organization, more intimate contact with bureaucratic government and the like, not by dissolution of the traditional pattern into an individualistic proletarian anomie, nor yet by a metamorphosis of it into a modern commercial farming community. Rather, by means of “a special kind of virtuosity”, ”a sort of technical hairsplitting”, it maintained the overall outlines of that pattern while driving the elements of which it was composed to ever-higher degrees of ornate elaboration and Gothic intricacy.13

Extending his ideas beyond the low-land rice areas, Geertz stated that “involution too has proceeded relentlessly onward or perhaps one should say outward, for a process which began to be felt first in full force mainly in the sugar regions is now found over almost the whole of Java”.14 We believe that the informal institutions regulating land and labor relationships became over time more complex. Geertz felt that these institutions operated to enhance the absorption capacity of Javanese rice production.

Although we will not examine the other concept in Geertz’s book, we should mention the shared poverty concept because it also effects involution Geertz explained it thus:

…………….the involution process also worked its peculiar pattern of changeless change on the distribution side. With the steady growth of population came also the elaboration and extension of mechanisms through which agricultural product was spread, if not altogether evenly, at least relatively so, throughout the huge human horde which was obliged to subsist on it. Under the pressure of increasing numbers and limited resources Javanese village society did not bifurcate, as did that of so many other “underdeveloped” nations into a group of large land-lords and a group of oppressed near-serfs. Rather it maintained a comparatively high degree of social and economic homogeneity by dividing the economic pie into a steadily increasing number of minute pieces, a process to which I have referred elsewhere as “shared poverty”.15

By and large, the set of mechanisms producing this fractionization of output seems to have been centered less on land ownership than on land-working. Consequently, according to Geertz there is involution in both production and distribution. Yet, what is meant by “distribution”? At times he seems to mean distribution of work opportunities and at other times the sharing of the results from the production process—the economic pie. In this case, it would seem to add to clarity, if agricultural involution is viewed as the process of production, and shared poverty as the distribution and consumption of the products of production.

Perhaps the most critical shortcoming in the shared poverty thesis is the fact that Geertz does not take into consideration the huge schism in village society between those who have land and those who do not. In not discussing the landless and how they gain a share of jobs on the production side and a share of the results on the consumption side, he is ignoring almost one-half of all villagers in the low-land areas in Java. Geertz further indicates that there were no large landlord groups in the village.

13 Geertz, op. cit., p-90. 14 Geertz, op. cit. p-126. 15 Geertz, op. cit. p-97.

5

We do recognize that Geertz was primarily examining what occurred in the nineteenth century, however, most people who read his book assume the propositions are still valid. Of course, land tenure problems, and land and labor relationships are different at the present time than in 1800’s, yet we still must test his propositions for their validity at the present time and in the twentieth century.

In the “shared poverty” concept in the context where ownership and control of land is divided in unequal fashion, it would seem unlikely that much sharing takes place between people across these economic strata. Indeed, much of the evidence suggests that people with land are sharing their wealth with those in the same class and usually with their relations or close friends and that the poor are simply sharing their poverty amongst themselves. Thus, in his study of a Javanese village, Koetjaraningrat provides information on the social ties of villagers which seems to indicate that there are definite limits to the sharing of wealth and poverty. First in importance to a Javanese household is to have good relations with close neighbors, then with others in the same hamlet, and lastly with households in other hamlets.16 Kinship ties among farmers who have fields in the same area. Koentjaraningrat does not specify that relations with the landless, other than close neighbors or relatives, have much importance to the Javanese households, and it is difficult to believe that in these circumstances that a farmer would willingly share his resources with the others in the village, especially if they are from a different social class. In partial agreement with these finding are the comments of Selosumardjan who notes that there are strong communal norms in Javanese society which requires the surplus wealth of the individual to be shared with others in the community but with relatives being given first priority.17 He suggests that there is sharing in a rural Javanese community but it is differential and relies on kinship ties and neighbor ties. If a landless laborer has no wealthy patron, then in his own group there may still also be sharing but it is a sharing of a very little.

In her penetrating study of rural Java, Margo Lyon portrayed the problem in the following way:

But what do these trends – admittedly involutional in one sense, but nevertheless true social and economic changes – imply in terms of changes in village stratification? The cash economy and the processes described by Geertz may have allowed the village to absorb more people, but they also changed the relationship between people within the desa (village). It may be that most people had a niche in the system and that a situation of “shared poverty” prevailed, but increased poverty and hardship also accentuated relatively small differences in economic and social rank within the village. The “fine web of work rights and responsibilities” may not be to the point, for, given the rising level of conflict in village society in recent decades and the increase in relative deprivation, what are minute changes in and of themselves are no longer minute in their larger context. Thus, accompanying the occurrence of involution is a process of social and economic differentiation, promoted by the increased divisions and involving changes in land use, ownership, and control.18

16 Koentjaraningrat, “Tjelapar: A Village in South Central Java”, in Villages in Indonesia, edited by

Koentjaraningrat, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1967, p. 251. 17 Selosumardjan, Social Change in Yogyakarta, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1962, p. 328. 18 Margo Lyons, The Basis of Conflict in Rural Java, Berkeley, University of California, Research

Monograph No. 3, Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, 1970, p-27.

6

If the village is viewed in this context, with involution being associated with differentiation then it seems to imply that shared poverty must be declining as involution increases. In a situation where there are not enough resources to ensure survival for everyone then as conflicts among different groups develops it seems much less likely that individuals will share with someone in a competing group. Although the Javanese have as much, and perhaps more, social conscience as anyone, Geertz implies too much in his concept of shared poverty. Lyon clearly states the problem:

…………….the increasing irrelevance of the concept of “shared poverty” since colonial times (at least to those segments of the rural sector at either end of the economic spectrum) all created the conditions for a radically different view of the village social and economic scene on the part of some of its members.19

Returning to the production of rice, in his concept of involution Geertz advanced the position that the most important feature of rice cultivation in Java was its ability to absorb increased numbers of cultivators per unit of cultivated land both per crop and per year. According to Geertz, increases in labor use simply reflect the capacity of wet-rice agriculture to yield more output in response to intensified cultivation practices. Thus, meticulous improvements in land preparation, transplanting techniques, irrigation management and other aspects of the growing process, all allow for marginal gain in production and for incremental enlargements in labor input. It would seem therefore, that improvements in seed variety would also be accompanied by advances in production quality and management of land, water, seeds, etc., allow for higher levels of production and labor absorption. Thus, the current widespread adoption in Java of the new high-yielding varieties should be accompanied by increases in labor use. Indeed, there is now sufficient evidence available on the use of the HYV’s in advancing a preliminary involution concept in explaining farmer responses to the Green Revolution technology. To summarize the propositions included in agricultural involution, the following are perhaps the major points:

1. The adoption of the new high yielding rice varieties and the associated technology (Green Revolution) has increased the use of labor per ha per crop in rice production;

2. Labor use per ha per crop increased over time; 3. Yields per ha per crop increase over time due primarily to increased of labor use; 4. Cropping intensity (number of crops per unit of land per year) increased over time; 5. Returns per person declined over time; 6. Land and labor relationship expressed in informal institutions operate to increase

the amount of labor in rice production; 7. Land ownership and control fairly evenly distributed among village residents; 8. No large land owners in the villages.

19 Lyons, op. cit., p-28.

7

In the following section of this paper we will examine these various propositions. They are only concerned with Java, yet we must recognize that what Java has experienced in the past and at the present is the forerunner of what may occur in the densely populated areas of the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, and Bangladesh. Ecologically, these areas are similar, and population pressures are building up to the Javanese levels. Consequently, the testing of these propositions is also important for other countries in Asia.

High Yielding Rice Varieties Effect on Labor Use per Ha per Crop Season

In order to test the proposition that the high yielding rice varieties and the associated inputs of fertilizer and pesticides have increased labor use per ha, data gathered by the Agro-Economic Survey from a sample of 600 rice farmers in 20 villages, all in Java, and all located in the better irrigated areas will be used. Based on these data the results are rather mixed when comparing total pre-harvest workdays per hectare of rice cultivated.20 In West Java the average workdays per hectare to grow local and national varieties was 240 workdays as compared to 270 workdays to produce high yielding, modern varieties (see Table 1), but in contrast, in East Java, the representative farmers used an estimated 260 workdays to grow the local/national varieties and 230 workdays to grow the HYVs. Comparing labor use for the larger farmers in the sample, the average workdays per hectare were 220 in West Java, 195 in Central Java, and 190 in East Java for the local/national varieties; and for the high yielding varieties the estimates were 330 in West Java, 200 in Central Java, and 210 in East Java. If this data is combined for the three province and size differences are eliminated, then the results are as follows:

Local/National Varieties HYVs

Hired labor (workdays/Ha) 185. 190.

Family labor 55. 50.

Total Labor 240. 240.

No. of observations 531. 91.

20 William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice

Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers”, Agro-Economic Survey, mimeographed, July 1973.

8

Table No. 1. Average Labor Use per Ha in Rice Production (not including harvesting and milling) by Varieties and by Large Farmers and Representatives Farmers in Java in the Wet Season 69/70.

Local/National improved varieties High Yielding Varieties

Province and type of labor Representatives

Farmer Large

Farmers Represen-

tatives Farmer

Large Farmers

West Java.

Hired labor (workdays) 180. 160. 200. 220.

Family labor (workdays) 60. 60. 70. 110.

Total (workdays) 240. 220. 270. 330.

No. of observations 131. 27. 18. 8.

Central Java.



Total (workdays) 250. 195. 180. 200.

No. of observations 197. 39. 2. 2

East Java.



Total (workdays) 260. 190. 230. 210..


East Java.



Total (workdays) 250. 200. 240. 250.


Source: Field survey carried out by the Agro-Economic Survey after the Wet Season 69/70 harvest and

reported in William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, “Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers”. Agro-Economic Survey, mimeographed, July 1073, Table 1.

Based on these estimates it appears that there was little labor-use difference in growing local and high-yielding varieties. Indeed, based on the East Java sample, which has the most observations for each variety, the local varieties grown by the representative farmers use more labor than the HYVs. These conclusions seem to be corroborated by the studies of Soelistyo in East Java and by the research undertaken by Montgomery in the Yogyakarta area.

9

Montgomery estimated that the IR variety used an estimated (47 observations) 317.9 mandays of labor per hectare, with the local varieties (56 observations) used 217.6 mandays per hectare of pre-harvest labor, whereas Soelistyo found that there was no significant difference between IR irrigated and non-IR irrigated in terms of labor use per hectare.21 However, these estimates do not include harvest and post harvest labor use. At the time of these studies it was felt to be impossible to estimate how much labor was used in the harvest since hundreds of people participate in this operation. These changes will be discussed later in the section on institutions. Yet, we believe that it is clearly proven that labor use in harvesting greatly declined because of the shift from hand held rice knives to sickles, and various institutional changes. Consequently, we believe that based on the above data, the proposition that the high yielding varieties have increased labor use per ha per crop is not valid.

Labor Use per Ha Increasing Over Time

Before examining this proposition in detail, it is interesting to consider what Crawford had to say about labor in rice production in the 1811 to 1816 period:

The high price of labor and extra ordinary demand for cultivators, is strikingly exemplified in the wages paid to shearers, which is every part of Java is no less than one-sixth of the gross produce, a rate continued even in the most populous provinces of the island, where the competition for labor is necessarily small such among these peoples is the influence of the empire of custom.22

One wonders what Crawford would say if he knew that almost 170 years later in some areas the farmers still give a one-sixth share to the harvesters. Although, there are much smaller shares given to harvesters, yet the presence of a one-sixth share as in the early 1800’s would indicate that at least the harvest cost in some instance has not greatly changed in 170 years which means labor use in the harvest per unit, at least for one-sixth share, has remained the same. In Wiradi’s study of harvesting in 20 villages in Java, he found five that still had harvesting share of 1/6, 1/5, and ¼.23 Obviously, this is rather insubstantial evidence but it does indicate that in the period of supposed involution, these remained the same harvest share for those who cut the rice, at least in certain areas. Of course, more people join the harvest at present, and there has been a change from excess demand for harvesters to excess supply of harvesters, yet the share and therefore the cost of the harvest remained the same. Also, the cost per kg of rice to harvest would also be the same in these areas where it remained a 1/6 share.

21 Soelistyo, “Creating Employment Opportunities in the Rural Areas of East Java”, Ph.D. Dissertation

(unpublished), University of Colorado, 1975, p-256. R.D. Montgomery and D.G. Sisler, “Labor Absorption in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: An Input-Output

Study”, Cornell University, A.E. Res. 75-10, March, 1976, p-61. 22 As quoted in A.M.P.A. Scheltema, Deelbouw in Nederlandisch Indie, Ph.D. Dissertation, H. Veenman

and Zonen publishers, Wageningen, Holland, 1931, p-213. 23 Gunawan Wiradi, “Proses Panen dan Alat-alat yang Digunakan: Suatu Catatan”, Memoradum no. 2,

(mimeo), Agro-Economic Survey, May 1974, p-22.

10

To understand labor use in Javanese rice production, we need to examine hired labor use and female-male labor use. These topics were not covered separately in the Geertz proposition. However, they are essential to our analysis since each one is a major component of total labor use.

As can be seen in Table 3, the average hired labor use of the villages studied was 61% in 1926-1931 period, 82% in the Dry Season 1969, 79% in the Wet Season 1969/1970, and 63% in the four villages in the 1975 to 1979 period. Unfortunately the 6 areas in 1969/1970 and the village in 1975/1976 did not include harvest labor which is almost entirely hired and female and would increase the hired percentage. Each period has a range of percentages, yet it is obvious that non-family hired labor is extremely important in rice production. This importance has remained essentially the same over the 50 year period between 1929 and 1979. Although this is not part of Geertz's proposition on agricultural involution, it should have been included in the involution concept at least as it is applied to rice production during the last 50 years.

Table No. 2. Percentage Hired and Family Labor Use in Javanese Rice Production.

Location and Year Family Labor

(%)

Hired Labor

(%) Total Labor Use

1926 – 1931.

Lumajang, East Java, 1929/30\A

1930/31 28 31

72 69

1144 hours/ha 1309 hours/ha

Kenep, Surabaya, East Java, 1925/26\B 59 41 2208 hours/ha

Djetis, Modjokerto, East Java, 1926/25\C 42 48 1547 hours/ha

Kertorejo, East Java, 1926/27(A 1927/28

32 28

68 72


Sawo, Ngawi, East Java, 1928/29\D 48 52 1012 hours/ha

Karangmalang, Ngawi, East Java, 1926/27\E 48 52 1172 hours/ha

Jaan, Berbek, East Java, 1926/27\A 29 71 1215 hours/ha

Average (1926 – 1931) 38 61 1345 hours/ha

Dry Season 1969.

Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java:\F

Local/National improved varieties HYV

25 16

75 84


Sidomulyo, Sidoarjo, East Java:\G Local/National improved varieties HYV

28 16

72 84


Geneng, Sidoarjo, East Java:\H Local/National improved varieties HYV

11 10

89 90


Average 1969 18 82 1526 hours/ha

11

Location and Year Family Labor

(%)

Hired Labor

(%) Total Labor Use

Wet Season 1969/1970.\I No harvest Labor

Pemalang, Central Java 17 83 205 workdays/ha

Kendal, Central Java 8 92 257 workdays/ha

Kebumen, Central Java 48 52 313 workdays/ha

Banyumas, Central Java 15 85 229 workdays/ha

Ngawi, East Java 20 80 286 workdays/ha

Sidoarjo, East Java 19 81 266 workdays/ha

Average 1969/1970 21 79 259 workdays/ha

Wet Season 1969/1970.

Janti, Sidoardjo, East Java\I 23 77 1331 hours/ha

Wet Season 1975/1976. (No harvest labor)

Banyutowo, Central Java .01 - .19 .20 - .29 .30 - .49 .40 - .99 1.00 +

73 64 50 25 11

27 36 50 75 89

1454 hours/ha 1256 hours/ha 1055 hours/ha 801 hours/ha 824 hours/ha

Average Banyutowo\K 55 45 1127 hours/ha

Wet Season 1978/1979.

Kraton, Lumajang, East Java\L 47 53 1396 hours/ha

Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java\M

.01 - .24 .20 - .49 .50 - .99 1.00 +

42 40 28 10

58 60 72 90

1670 hours/ha 1150 hours/ha 1090 hours/ha 1010 hours/ha

Average Gemarang\K 30 70 1166 hours/ha

Sumokembangsri, Sidoardjo, East Java\N 17 83 1708 hours/ha

Average 1975 to 1979 37 63 1423 hours/ha \A G. J. Vink, De Grondslagen van het Indonesiche Landbouwbedrijf, Ph.D. Dissertation, published by H. Veenman

and Zonen, Wageningan, The Netherlands, 1941, page 87. \B G. J. Vink, Eiland Djojodihardjo, and M. J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijsculture in het Gehuct Kenep

(Residentie Soerabaja)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-140. Based on information from 39 fields (respondents).

\C G. J. Vink, Eiland Djojodihardjo, and Goenoeng Iskandar, "Partieele Baedrijfsontleding te Djetis (Modjokerto)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 2, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-127 and 137. Based on information from 20 respondents.

12

\D E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, p-692. Based on Information from 28 fields (respondents) with a total area of 19.5 ha.

\E E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, p-695. Based on Information from 31 fields (respondents) with a total area of 19 ha.

\F These estimates are based on 19 interviews in Gemarang village by the Agro-Economic Survey at the end of the Dry Season harvest in 1969. The local and national improved varieties had 14 respondents and an average size of rice field operation of .19 ha. The IR varieties estimate is based on 24 respondents and an average size of operation of.38 ha.

\G These estimates are based on 30 interviews in Sidomuljo village by the Agro-Economic Survey at the end of the Dry Season harvest in 1969. The local and national improved varieties had 20 respondents and an average size of rice fields operation of .19 ha. The IR variety is based on 24 respondents and an average size of operation of .46 ha.

\H These estimates are based on 29 respondents in Geneng who cultivated local and national improved varieties and had an average size of .45 ha; and on 11 respondents in Geneng who cultivated IR varieties and had an average size of operation of .19 ha. The interviews were carried out at the end of the 1969 Dry Season harvest by the Agro-Economic Survey. The author has recently made these calculations using the questionnaires.

\I William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, "Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers", Agro Economic Survey, (unpublished), July 1973, Appendix tables G9, G10, G11, G12, G13, G14. In each Kabupaten (county) which are shown (e.g. Pemalang) there are two randomly selected villages. In each village the sample size was usually 30 rice farmers.

\J These estimates are based on 26 respondents who all planted local varieties and were interviewed by the Agro Economic Survey's team at the end of the Wet Season 1969/1970. Their average size of operation was .58 ha. The author has made these calculations based on the original questionnaires.

\K Gillian Hart, Labor Allocation in Rural Javanese Households, unpublished, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1978, p-143. The information is by size of operation: 6 respondents (1.00+ha), 13 respondents (.30-.49), 11 respondents (.19-.29), and 17 respondents (.19 and smaller).

\L Interview survey of sample respondents in March 1979 as reported in Kliwon Hidayat, Pranata Sosial Pada Usaha Tani Padi di Desa Kraton, Sarjana thesis, (unpublished), Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, 1979, p-47. The estimates are based on interviews of 66 respondents.

\M Sri Hartoyo, "Tingkat Produksi, Tenaga Kerja, Pendapatan Rumah Tagga dan Kelembagaan", Agro Economic Survey, unpublished, October 1979, p- Table 12. The information is based on by size of operation: 7 respondents (.01 - .24 ha), 13 respondents (.25-.49), 12 respondents (.50 - .99), and 8 respondents (1.00+ ha).

\N This information is based on research by Mr. Soentoro who is working on his M.S. thesis at the Bogor Agricultural University.

The next aspect of labor use which was not specifically examined by Geertz, but still extremely important, is the role of female labor in the cultivation of rice in Java. In Table 3 are shown the percentages based on village studies of female labor in rice production from 1926 to 1979. In the 1925 - 1929 time period, female labor use was an average of 65% for rice production in the studies of five villages for the 1969 period in the four villages, the average female labor use was 53% of the total amount used to cultivate rice. In the 1975 to 1979 period the average percentage of female labor use was 37% for the studies in the four villages. These villages are all in lowland, predominately rice growing, densely populated areas that have adequate irrigation facilities. Furthermore, the villages in Sidoardjo and Ngawi kabupatens (counties) which were studied in each time period are located within a few kilometers of each other. Although there are not enough cases to be absolutely definite, it appears that the percentage of female labor in rice production has declined in the last fifty years, and the greatest decline may have occurred in the late 60's and early 70's. Most of this decline was in hired female labor use. This runs counter to the concept of agricultural involution which postulates that additional labor would be absorbed as population pressure increased.

13

To examine in more detail the use of labor in rice cultivation, we have shown in Table 4 the average use by operations for four time periods: 1878, 1920-1930, 1969, and 1977/1978. Although the data from the twenties seems to be rather abundant we believe it is important to record the results of these early studies and to indicate also the variation in the averages. Furthermore, the author is quite impressed with the very detailed accounting of labor use by these early agricultural economists from both the Netherlands and Indonesia.

Table No. 3. Percentage and Average Labor Use by Male and Female Workers in Rice Production between 1926 and 1979.

I t e m Percentage

Female Labor

(%)

Percentage Male Labor

(%) Total Labor (hours/ha)

Sawo village, Ngawi, East Java, 1926/1927.\A 70 30 964

Pasaredjo village, Pasuruan, East Java.\B Wet Season 1927/1928 Wet Season 1928/1929 Dry Season 1928

69 69 69

31 31 31

2168 2140 2392

Kenep village, Surabaya, East Java.\C Wet Season 1925/1926(D

Wet Season 1925/1926(E

59 52

41 48

2118 1834

Djetis village, Modjokerto, East Java.\F Wet Season 1926/1926 Wet Season 1927/1928

64 64

36 36

1407 1596

Karangmalang village, Ngawi, East Java.\G Wet Season 1926/1927

68

32

1104

Djatisari village, Lumajang, East Java.\H Wet Season 1929/1930 Wet Season 1930/1931

65 70

35 30

1231 1377

Average 65 35 1666

Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969.\I


59 69

41 31

2111 1620

Sidomulyo village, Sidoardjo, East Java, Dry Season 1969.\J


40 46

60 54

1349 979

Geneng village, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969.\K


59 51

41 49

1303 1799

Janti village, Sidoardjo, East Java, Dry Season 1969/1970.\L

Local varieties

49

51

1331

Average 53 47 1499

14

I t e m Percentage

Female Labor

(%)

Percentage Male Labor

(%) Total Labor (hours/ha)

Banyutowo village, Kendal, Central Java, (pre harvest) Wet Season 1975/1976.\M

47

53

1173

Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season 1977/1978.\N

37

63

1173

Kraton village, Lumajang, East Java, Wet Season 1978/1979.\O

24

76

1396

Sumokembangsri village, Sidoardjo, East Java, Wet Season 1977/1978.\P

41

59

1708

Average 37 63 1363 \A Same as footnote in Table 2. \B E. de Vries, Landbouw in Welvaart in het Regentschap Pasoeroean, Mededeeling, No. 16,

H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, Holland, 1931, p-236, 234, 240. The wet season 1927/1928 is based on information from 44 fields with a total area of 12.2 ha. The wet season 1928/1929 is based on information from 28 fields with a total area of 7.2 ha. The dry season 1928 is based on information from 20 fields with a total area 3.8 ha.

\C Same as footnote \B in Table 2. \D Rice field before renting to sugarcane factory. \E Rice field after returned from sugarcane factory. \F Same as footnote \C in Table 2. \G Same as footnote \D in Table 2. \H J. van der Ploeg and Koesno Adirono, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost

Java)", Landbouw, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-224 and 225. \I Same as footnote \F in Table 2. \J Same as footnote \G in Table 2. \K Same as footnote \H in Table 2. These estimates do not include harvest labor which is predominately female and

non-family. \L Same as footnote \J in Table 2. \M Same as footnote \K in Table 2. The average is weighted by the number of respondents. \N Same as footnote \M in Table 2. \O Same as footnote \L in Table 2. This is weighted average on Kraton village and does not include harvester who

farm. \P Same as footnote \N in Table 2

15

Table No. 4. Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 1923-1930, 1969, and 1978 in Java

Operations (hours/ha)

Location Seed-ding

Field pre-para-tion

Transplant-ing

Ferti-lizing and

spray-ing

Weed-ing

Har-vest-ing

Dry-ing and stor-ing

Total

1878 Kediri (n.a.)\A 63 595 230 - 594\B 286 120 1888

1924-1930 Sawo, Ngawi, (.56 ha)\C 21 230 314 - 10 444 - 1019 Karangamalang, Ngawi, (.66 ha)\C 29 167 409 - 43 526 - 1174 Jaan, Berbek, (1.79 ha)\C 10 136 305 - 15 740 - 1206 Djatisari, Lumajang, (.83 ha)\D 39 223 258 - 290 501 68 1377 Demak\E (n.a.) n.a. 173 n.a. - n.a. 540 - n.a. Surabaya\E (n.a.) 66 209 280 - 386 839 - 1780 Rembang\E (n.a.) n.a. 252 310 - n.a. 476 - n.a. Surakarta\E (n.a.) n.a. 959 351 - n.a. 520 - n.a. Besuki\E (n.a.) n.a. 141 n.a. - n.a. 459 - n.a. Banten\E (n.a.) n.a. 216 151 - 359 316 - 1042 Cirebon\E (n.a.) 67 102 355 - 253 339 - 1136 Prijetan, Surabaya (n.a.) 1923\E n.a. 116 382 - 28 n.a. - n.a. Prijetan, Surabaya (n.a.) 1924\E n.a. 156 411 - n.a. n.a. - n.a. Kuningan, Cirebon\E (n.a.) 88 229 690 - 421 406 - 1834 Maja, Cirebon\E (n.a.) 74 381 673 - 124 277 - 1529 Kenep, Sidoardjo\F (.41 ha) 26 413 484 - 459 876 - 2258 Kenep, Sidoardjo\G (.33 ha) 92 447 412 - 254 713 - 1919

Average 51 267 386 0 220 531 68 1523 1969 Geneng, Ngawi\H

Local/Nat. Imp. (.45 ha) HYV (.19 ha)

44 51

241 328

242 270

16 50

264 573

475 475

21 47

1303 1799

Gemarang, Ngawi\H Local/Nat. Imp. (.22 ha) HYV (.38 ha)

69 40

393 245

303 249

53 29

597 346

647 678

49 33

2111 1620

Sidomulyo, Sidoardjo\H Local/Nat. Imp. (.19 ha) HYV (.46 ha)

65 43

431 331

200 144

73 49

316 282

166

87

98 43

1349

979 Janti, Sidoardjo

Local/Nat. Imp. (.58 ha)

63

370

208

59

310

195

126

1331 Average 54 334 231 47 384 389 60 1499

1977/1978 Geneng, Ngawi (.82 ha)\I n.a. 260 215 n.a 287 284 n.a 1046 (include fertilizing and spraying) \A J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Naar Annleiding van Staatsblad, No. 110, 1878, p-51 to 53. He presented the

information in bahu and the author converted it to Ha by dividing in order to make these estimates of labor use. \B This is actually a combination of weeding which was 294 hours and guarding against birds which was 300

hours/ha.

16

\C Calculation were made by the author based on information in the Appendices in E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding van de Tabaks en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw, V, No. 8, 1929/30, pp-690, 695, and 696.

\D These estimates are from Table 12 and 13 in J. van der Ploeg and Koesno Adirono, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost Java)", Landbouw, p-224 and p-225.

\E These averages were made by the author based on information in the test and in the Appendices in M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, pp. 252-272.

\F These averages were made by the author based on information in the text and in the Appendices in G.J. Vink, Einland Djojodihardjo, and M.J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijstcultuur in het Gehucht Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja)", Landbouw, VII, 1931, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. These fields are before renting to the sugarcane factory.

\G The source is the same as footnote (D. These fields are after the fields are returned to the farmers by the sugarcane factory.

\H These estimates have been made by the author using the Agro Economic Survey's questionnaires for these three villages. The interview surveys were carried out at the end of the Dry Season harvest in 1969.

\I These estimates are from information collected by Mr. Soentoro and the Rural Dynamics team, and will be included in Mr. Soentoro's M.S. Thesis. The author is his major advisor.

All of these estimates are based on fairly large samples of farmers in each of the villages, except for the 1878 estimate which is based on very careful observations and measurements. For each of these time periods the villages are located in the best irrigated areas and the farmers can plant at least two crops per year.24 Unfortunately, we only have available one village study for the 1977/78 period.

In each time period, we have arranged the estimates for each operation and created representative averages for each operation which are presented in Table 4. Based on these estimates, the average labor use between the 1878-1930 periods and the 1969 period are very similar. The 20's average was 1,523 hours per ha and the 1969 average was 1,499 hours per ha. Because of the wide variance of the estimates for each village we believe it is safe to state that labor use did not increase during this almost 100 year period (1878-1969). In 1969 the farmers on Java only had access to the high yielding varieties for two seasons and had not yet greatly changed their methods of production. During the period of 1969 to 1978 was when there occurred major institutional and technological changes that significantly reduced labor use per ha in rice production. These were primarily the changes in the rice harvest institution, the shift from the ani-ani hand held rice knife to the sickle in cutting rice, the adoption of hullers to process the rice rather than hand pounding, the use of contract labor in harvesting, weeding, planting, and field preparation rather than daily hired labor. Some of this production in labor use per hectare is reflected in the averages for the 1969 and the 1977/78 period. It is hoped that more data will be available in the near future from the Rural Dynamics Study and various other researchers to clearly prove this proposition. The main declines seem to have been in harvesting and weeding which are primarily hired female laborers. One can rather confidently state that the decline in labor use per hectare has been primarily in hired female workers. This is substantiated by recent development of the shift from female hand pounding of rice to power generated rice hullers which eliminated a substantial portion of female hired labor. The shift of 24 The author is in the process of reanalyzing the Agro Economic Survey's data on rice production in

the 1969 to 1973 period. It consists of a sample of 37 villages and a total of 1100 respondents, who were interviewed by season for 3 to 5 times on rice cultivation. In the past our estimates were in labor days and did not distinguish between male and female labor. Only four villages for one season were completed by the deadline for this paper.

17

ani-ani hand held rice knife to the sickle in the harvest has also significantly reduced female labor in the last few years. And men have begun to harvest rice. The major proposition in the concept of agricultural involution is that rice production can continuously absorb additional labor without a significant drop in yields per unit of land. Although it is not adequate to conclusively test Geertz's proposition, in Table 5 the labor use in hours per ha per crop does appear to have declined during the last 100 years. Also, the information from Gemarang, Sidoardjo in 1969 and Sumokembangsri in 1978 does partially confuse the situation because of their still high estimated average labor use. When considering these results, one must remember that these are hours per ha and not the number of people involved in the cultivation of rice. It is possible that more people worked fewer hours per person than in the past. Unfortunately, the data is not adequate to examine this aspect of labor use. These results are also the opposite of what we would have expected if we use the agricultural involution concept to understand Javanese rice production. Consequently, we believe that the Geertz's proposition is not valid for the last 100 years, at least for our rather limited test. Still, this is much more evidence on labor use in rice production than was presented in Geertz's book. At least in this test there have been estimates from the 1878's, 1920's and 1930's and the present period. Because the variation of the estimates in Table 5 is quite large, the most we can explicitly state for Javanese rice production is that labor use per ha has definitely not increased, probably has remained rather constant, and perhaps has declined during this 100 year period. This is at a time when population pressure in rural Java has drastically increased. Using the Geertz concept in this situation, we would have expected that labor use per ha per crop would have greatly increased. Obviously, it did not and the proposition of increasing labor absorption is not an acceptable explanation of Javanese rice cultivation from the 1880's to the 1980's.

Table No. 5. Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 1923-1930, 1969, and 1978 in Java

Location and Date Labor Use (hours/ha)

1878

Kediri, East Java\A 1888

1925-1931

Sawo village, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season, 1928/29.\B 1019

Karangamalang, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season, 1926/1927.\C 1174

Jaan, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season, 1926/1927.\D 1206

Pasarejo village, Pasuruan, East Java.\E

Wet Season 1927/28 Wet Season 1927/28 Dry Season 1928

2168 2140 2392

Kenep village, Surabaya, East Java. Wet Season 1925/26 \F

Wet Season 1925/26 \G

2258 1919

Djetis village, Mojokerto, East Java.\H

Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927/28

1547 1599

18

Location and Date Labor Use (hours/ha)

Banten, Wet Java, 1925.\I 1042

Surabaya, East Java, 1925.\I 1780

Lumajang, East Java, 1929/30.\J 1144

Lumajang, East Java, 1930/31.\J 1309

Kertorejo, East Java, 1925/26.\J 1276



Kuncung, East Java, 1926.\K 1177

Kuncung, East Java, 1926.\L 1450

Kuncung, East Java, 1926.\M 1285

Kuningan, Cirebon, West Java, 1926.\N 1834

Maja, Cirebon, West Java, 1926.\N 1529

Average 1925 to 1931 1534

1969

Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969 \O Local/National improved varieties HYV

2111 1620

Sidomulyo, Sidoarjo, East Java, Dry Season 1969 \P Local/National improved varieties HYV

1349 979

Geneng, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969 \Q Local/National improved varieties HYV

1303 1799

Janti, Sidoardjo, East Java, Wet Season 1969/70 \R

Local

1331

Average 1969 1449

1975-1979

Banyutowo, Kendal, Central Java, 1975/76 \S

(no harvest labor included) 1126

Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java, 1978/79 \T 1173

Kraton, Lumajang, East Java, 1978/1979 \U 1396

Sumokembangsri, Sidoarjo, East Java, 1977/78 \V 1708

1350 Source: Average yields in the table are based on the information in the Appendix tables. \A Same as footnote \A in Table 4. \B Same as footnote \D in Table 2. \C Same as footnote \E in Table 2. D Same as footnote \A in Table 2. \E Same as footnote \B in Table 3. \F Same as footnote \B in Table 2. Rice field before renting to sugarcane factory. \G Same as footnote \B in Table 2. Rice field after returned from sugarcane factory. \H Same as footnote \C in Table 2.

19

\I M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, pp. 255 to 299 in Korte Mededeeling van de afdeeling Landbouw, No.1 as quoted in G.J. Vink, De Grondslagen van het Indonesische Lanbouwbedrijf, 1941, p-95.

\J G.J. Vink, De Grondslagen van het Indonesische Lanbouwbedrijf, Ph. D. Dissertation, published by H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1941, p-186.

\K The source is the same as footnote \J in this table. The estimate is for rice fields before renting to sugarcane factory.

\L The source is the same as footnote \J in this table. The estimate is for rice fields after being returned by the sugarcane factory.

\M The source is the same as footnote \I in this table. The estimate is for rice fields that have been never had sugarcane planted in the fields.

\N The source is the same as footnote \i in this table. The date is only an approximation since there was not enough information to determine the exact year and season.

\O Same as footnote \F in Table 2. \P Same as footnote \G in Table 2. \Q Same as footnote \H in Table 2. \R Same as footnote \J in Table 2. \S Same as footnote \K in Table 2. This is a weighted average of the information in his report which gave a

breakdown by size of operation. \T Same as footnote \M in Table 2. \U Same as footnote \L in Table 2. \V Same as footnote \N in Table 2.

Javanese Farmers in the 1880's

Although somewhat of a digression, it is very interesting to examine how Javanese farmers allocated their labor in the 1880's. In a series of three reports, Arminius presents the daily labor allocation of three Javanese farmers for one year period from February 1886 to February 1887.25 The data was collected by interviewing daily these three farmers who lived in Central Java. This author has summarized this daily labor allocation in Table 6. Due to the "cultivation system" of the Dutch Government, these farmers were required to provide unpaid labor for various activities as shown in Table 6. It is obvious that even in the 1880's Javanese farmers had many work activities and a variety of income sources. The involution concept ignored off-farm employment, but this information indicates that even for their own labor activities, a considerable amount of their time is spent in off-farm work.

Arminius described the labor allocation, returns, and expenditures or the three Javanese farmers. Only for farmer Wongsowikromo who lived in Kliurip village, he also provided information on this farmer's use of labor in producing rice in the 1886/87 wet season and also the area of his farm.26 25 Arminius "Het Budget van een Javanschen Landbouwer (Budget of Javanese Farmers)", De

Indische Gids, Staat-en Letterkundig Maanschrift, 11O Jaargang, 1889, Vol. I (pp. 1685 to 1720), Vol. II (pp. 1885 to 1917), Vol. III (2419 to 2186).

26 This village is in Kemiri District, Afdeeling Kutoarjo, Bagelen Karesidenan.

20

Farmer Wongsowikromo had the following holdings which he owned:

30 R.R. of wet rice field (sawah) 27 50 R.R. of dry agricultural fields 20 R.R. of fruit trees 60 R.R. of housegarden

= .04 ha = .07 ha = .03 ha = .09 ha

Total .23 ha

Table No. 6. Daily labor allocation of three Javanese farmers for one year period from February 1886 to February 1887

Farmer Tjowikromo in Bendo Villages

Farmer Sodrono in Kalimaneng Wetan

villages

Farmer Wongsowikromo in

Kalioerie village I t e m

Total hours of one year

% Total

hours of one year

% Total

hours of one year

%

Unpaid labor required by Gov. (Dinas Rodi):

1. Irrigation work 2. Road construction 3. Coffee cultivation

209 185

9. 8. 0.

41 84 0

2. 3. 0.

0 0

397

16.

Sub Total 125\B 5. 397

Unpaid labor required by the village (Dinas Desa)

1. Weaving mats (bilik) 2. Work for the village leader 3. Road constructions 4. Assisting village surveyor 5. Irrigation work 6. Guard duty

86

104

165 466

4. 5.

7. 21.

9

226 64

2

61 122

0.

9. 3.

0. 2. 5.

n.a.

Sub Total 484\C 19. 805\D 32.

27 The notation for land area in Arminous's study is rather confusing. Egbert de Vries in his study

"Ontleding van de Tabaks en Rijscultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw, V, 1929/30, no. 8, on page 674 gave the following conversion:

1 RR2 = 1/500 bahu = 14.2 m2 1 RR = 3.77 meters 1 bahu = .7 ha Unfortunately, when Arminius states that Wongsowikromo has 30 RR of wet rice fields, it is not clear if

it is length or area. If we assume he means 30 RR of area, then it converts to .04 of irrigated fields (sawah).

21

Farmer Tjowikromo in Bendo Villages

Farmer Sodrono in Kalimaneng Wetan

villages

Farmer Wongsowikromo in

Kalioerie village

Labor for own activities 1. Farm Operation

Weru orchard \A Teak trees Non irrigated fields Irrigated fields

2. Work in the house, housegarden, and orchard

3. Cutting grass and taking care of cattle

4. Selling goods produced by his farm

5. Looking for seed and goods

6. Hired labor (paid in cash or kind)

7. Additional work 8. Rice harvest labor for other

farmers (in kind) 9. Rice harvest labor in own

field 10. Gathering wood, and

cutting alang-alang and grass

11. Selling wood, alang-alang and grass

506

28

81 429

0

22.

1.

4. 19.

54 7

205 261

373

475.5

76

70.5

313

16

4.5\E

0

2. 0. 8.

11.

15.

19.

3.

2.

13.

1.

0.

217 684

20

71

137

111

106

9. 27.

1.

3.

5.

4.

4.

Sub Total 2259 100. 2462 100. 2548 100. Source: Arminius, "Het Budget van een Javanschen Landbouwer, "De indische Gids Staat-en Letterkundig

Maandschrift 11O Jaargang (1889(, p-1910 and 1911 for farmer Sodrono, p-2174 and 2175 for farmer Tjowikromo, and p-2174 and 2175 for farmer Wongsowikromo.

\A The weru tree provides large leaves that can be used as wrapping paper. \B For the unpaid labor (Dinas Rodi) required by the government, he worked 29 days of an average of 4 hours per

day. \C For the unpaid labor (Dinas Desa) required by the village, he worked 56 days or an average of 9 hours per day. \D The unpaid village labor for this farmer was not broken down into activities rather Arminius only gave the total for

this labor. \E He harvested his rice field twice, first time in March and the second time in September.

During the 12 months (1886/87) he allocated 683.5 hours of his time to working in his own fields and house. If we assume that his work day is eight hours, then he only spent 85 days of the year working on these two activities. Also, if his irrigated rice field (sawah) is only .04 hectare, then this farmer used the following labor per hectare in cultivating his rice in 1886/87:

hours/ha Field preparation (spading) Planting seeds in seedbed Transplanting Weeding Harvesting Drying

663 100 100 300 300 100

Total 1,563

22

We are not claiming that this labor use per ha represents rice cultivation in 1886. Yet, it is one of only two available reports on labor use in the last century, and therefore is quite useful as an indicator of labor use in the past. Since his estimated labor use in hours/ha is the same level as the estimates for the 1924-1930 and period it does suggest that during the last 100 years the amount has remained somewhat constant rather than increasing which means there was no involution in rice production per ha per season. His yields of wet paddy was 11 pocong which converts to 1710 kg/ha or 1.2 ton/ha of rough rice (gabah).28 The share of the yield for the harvesters was 1/5 or 1/6 of what they harvested. The other Javanese farmers in Arminius's study also had small farm operations. Farmer Tjowikromo in Bendo village had .28 ha of irrigated fields (sawah), .03 ha of non-irrigated fields (tegalan) and .2 ha of housegarden. Farmer Sodrono in Kalimeneng Wetan village and .14 ha of irrigated fields, .07 ha of non-irrigated fields, .17 ha of fruit orchard, and .14 ha of housegarden. His irrigated and non-irrigated fields were held communally, and the rest he owned himself. The important point is that even in 1886 these farm operations were very small and similar to the operations at the present time.

Yields per Ha Increasing Over Time

Built into the involution concept is the proposition that the yields per ha would increase over time due to increasing use of labor. In Table 7 are the estimated rice yields in rough rice (gabah) per ha in the three time periods based on the case studies.29 The averages were 2.39 ton/ha in the 1925 to 1930 period, 3.02 ton/ha in the Dry Season 1969, 4.35 ton/ha in the Wet Season 1969/70 period, and 2.83 ton/ha in the 1975 to 1979 period. Obviously, these do not represent Java, only the villages that were studied. However, based on this information we can conclude for these villages during the 50 years period, the yields per ha have increased. Besides this the average yield of the three Javanese farmers in 1889/87 was 1.7 ton/ha which gives a slight indication from the 1880's that yields have also increased during the last 100 years. This does agree with the Geertz's proposition on rice yields per unit. Though, it did occur when labor use declined which does not agree with the concept of agricultural involution.

Returns per Person Declining Over Time

As we have suggested part of the involution concept is the proposition that returns per person will decline as labor is absorbed in rice cultivation. Although Geertz did not clearly define returns, we will assume that the returns are only the gross yields in rough rice divided by the total labor hours per ha. As indicated in footnote \E and \F in Table 7, we have made several rather rough assumptions for the estimates that did not include harvest labor and those in workdays per ha. Based on these estimates in Table 7, the average gross returns per labor hour to the farm operators in the case studies were 1.1 kg/hours for farmer Wingsowikromo in 1887, 1.7 kg/hours in the 1925/1930 period, 2.6 kg/hours in the 1969/1970 period, and 2.2 kg/hours in the 1975 to 1979 period. Once again this is only a few village studies, yet it does, in this instance, disprove Geertz's proposition that returns per unit per crop would decline over 28 100 kati = 62.5 kg

10 pocong = 100 kati 1 pocong = 10 kati = 6.25 kg

29 During the 1800's and 1900's under the Dutch Administration there are good statistics on rice yields. However, we feel that it is important to use village case studies of both yields and labor use.

23

time as labor was absorbed due to agricultural involution. Once again we should explain that this is per hour but we are assuming this to be returns to the family while ignoring the hired labor which was not in the involution proposition.

Table No. 7. Average Rice Yields (rough rice)\A in tons per hectares and Kg per Labor Hour for Java in the 1925-1930 period and 1970-1980 period.

Location Date Yields of rough rice (ton/ha)

Rough rice in Kg per labor hour

1925-1930

Sawo village, Ngawi, East Java. Wet Season 1928/29 1.31 1.3

Pasarejo village, Pasuruan, East Java Wet Season 1927/28\B

Wet Season 1927/28\C

Dry Season 1928

2.14 2.35 1.58

1.0 1.1

.7

Karangmalang village, Pasuruan, East Java.

Wet Season 1926/27 1.53 1.3

Jaan village, Ngawi, East Java. Wet Season 1926/27 2.50 2.1

Kenep village, Sidoarjo, East Java. Wet Season 1925/26\B

Wet Season 1925/26\C 3.80 3.01

1.8 1.6

Jetis village, Mojokerto, East Java Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927/28

3.05 1.84

2.0 1.2

Kertorejo village, East Java Wet Season 1925/26 Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927/28

2.75 2.32 2.04

2.2 1.7 1.8

Kuncung village, East Java Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1926/27\C

Wet Season 1926/27\D

3.19 3.43 3.08

2.7 2.4 2.4

Kuningan, Cirebon, West Java Wet Season 1926/27 1.33 .8

Maja, Cirebon, West Java Wet Season 1926/27 1.60 1.1

Kuncung village, East Java. Wet Season 1927 2.62 2.2

Average 2.39 1.7

1969

Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java: Local/Nat. Imp. Varieties HYV

Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969

1.39 2.33

0.7 1.4

Sidomulyo, Sidoarjo, East Java: Local/Nat. Imp. Varieties HYV


5.00 5.27

3.7 5.4

Geneng, Ngawi, East Java: Local/Nat. Imp. Varieties HYV


1.16 3.20

.9

1.8

Janti, Sidoarjo, East Kava Dry Season 1969/70 2.76 2.3

Average 3.02 2.3

24

Location Date Yields of rough rice (ton/ha)

Rough rice in Kg per labor hour

1969-1970 \E

Pemalang, Central Java: Local varieties

Wet Season 1969/70

2.31

1.6

Kendal, Central Java: Local varieties

Wet Season 1969/70

5.31

3.2

Kebumen, Central Java: Local varieties

Wet Season 1969/70

4.31

2.2

Banyumas, Central Java: Local varieties

Wet Season 1969/70

3.73

2.4

Ngawi, East Java: HYV

Wet Season 1969/70

5.57

2.8

Ngawi, East Java: Local varieties

Wet Season 1969/70

3.59

2.8

Sidoarjo, East Java: HYV Local varieties

Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70

5.52 4.54

3.7 2.5

Average Wet Season 1969/70 4.35 2.6

1975 to 1979

Banyutowo village, Kendal, Central Java. Wet Season 1975/76 1.75 1.1

Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java 4.50 3.9

Kraton village, Lumajang, East Java. Wet Season 1975/76 2.24 1.6

Average 1975 to 1979 4.35 2.6 Source: The information in this table comes from the same source as in the proceeding tables. \A This in Indonesia is gabah. The wet stalk paddy yields have been converted to gabah (rough rice which has not

yet had the hull removed) using a conversion on 70%. \B Rice field before rented to sugarcane factory. \C Rice field after returned from sugarcane factory. \D Rice field not used for sugarcane. \E This information is from William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, "Comparison of Input Use and Yields of

Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers", 1973. The labor hours do not include harvest labor and are in days per ha. To make this somewhat comparable we have assumed a 5 hour labor day and added 400 hours/ha to harvest. These are the estimates for the Representative farmers.

\F The labor estimates did not include harvest labor. To make the estimates comparable, we have added an assumed 400 hours/ha for harvesting.

25

Land and Labor Institutions Since the author and many others have written papers on the impact of changing institutions on labor use in rice production in Java, we will only very briefly examine this proposition in this section.30 The most obvious change has been the one from hand pounding the rice by female workers to using rice hullers. Labor use declined greatly with this innovation, and was estimated to have eliminated 125 million woman-days per year of labor in Java.31 The second change has been the spread of the sickle that is displacing the hand held rice knife (ani-ani) throughout East Java, and in certain areas in Central and West Java. Labor use has been greatly reduced per ha because of the use of a sickle. It also is a change from primarily female labor to male labor. Besides these obvious examples, other institutions have been changing that have enabled land owners to reduce employment in soil preparation of landless (49%, 37%, 63%, 38% and 67%), and percentage of very small, marginal farmers (22%, 32%, 19%, 19% and 18%). When combined and averaged for the five villages, the proportion of landless and marginal farmers is 59% of the total number of households in the villages. To even more strongly emphasize the presence of an unequal distribution of land ownership, the largest owners had the following shares of the agricultural land in four of the villages:

Percentage of

the villagers

Percentage of the agricultural land they owned

Average size of these farmers (ha)

Kendal

Kraton

Gemini

Scorpio

8%

17%

2%

7%

51%

66%

38%

32%

n.a.

1.75

5.02

1.67

30 Those by the author are the following:

1. William L. Collier and Soentoro, "Rural Development and Decline of Traditional Village Welfare Institutions in Java", Development Studies Center, Australian National University (accepted for publication), 1980, 79 pp.

2. William L. Collier, Soentoro, Gunawan Wiradi, and Makali, "Agricultural Technology and Institutional Change in Java", Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University, Vol. XII, No. 2, 1974.

3. William L. Collier, Gunawan Wiradi, and Soentoro, "Recent Changes in Rice Harvesting Method", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2, July 1973.

4. William L. Collier, Jusuf Colter, Sinarhadi, "Choice of Technique in Rice Milling in Java: A Comment", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, March 1974, pp. 36-45.

31 William L. Collier, et. a1., "Choice of Technique in Rice Milling in Java: A Comment", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, March 1974, p. 36-45

26

Table No. 8. Population Density and Landless Residents in Selected Villages in the Lowland Areas in Java

Location Date of survey

Population Density per kilometer

Percentage of

villagers who are landless

(%)

1. Sungonlegowo village, Gresik, East Java. \A 1977 331 45.

2. Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java. \B 1977 605 63.

3. Sumberrejo village, Pasuruan, East Java. \C 1976 1,143 49.

4. Glanggang village, Brantas, East Java. \D 1972 1,252 82.

5. Bangsri village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 1977 615 11.

6. Klampis village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 1977 1,014 25.

7. Balapulangwetan village, Tegal, Central Java. \C 1977 4,264 89.

8. Kebumen village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 1977 1,317 43.

9. Blimbing village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 1977 978 33.

10. Karangdowo village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 1977 1,738 70.

11. Kalipucangkulon village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 1977 1,223 67.

12. Miri village, Bantul, Central Java. \F 1970 n.a. 37.

13. Parigi village, Serang, West Java. \H 1958 556 67.

14. Tegalwangi village, Pandeglang, West Java. \H 1958 347 10.

15. Anomsari village, Karawang, West Java. \I 1976 1,331 65.

16. Kraton village, Lumajang, East Java. \J 1978 754 60.

17. Umbulrejo village, Jember, East Java. \K 1977 980 45.

18. Mangkangwetan village, Semarang, Central Java. \L 1978 1,154 83.

19. Sidogemak village, Demak, Central Java. \M 1976 543 63.

20. Gondosari village, Pati, Central Java. \N 1976 1,043 67.

Average 1,115 54.

\A Hamid Hidayat, "Desa Sungonlegowo, Kecamatan Bungah, Kabupaten Gresik", Orientation report, Rural Dynamic Study, Agro Economic Survey, East Java, 1978, 24 pp.

\B Soentoro, "Distribusi Tanah di Desa Gemarang", Agro Economic Survey, East Java, Draft, 1979. \C Kabul Santoso, The Income Distribution and Employment in Desa Sumberrejo, Kecamatan Pandaan, Kabupaten

Pasuruan, unpublished, M.S. Thesis for the degree of Magister Sains, Bogor, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, 1977, 100 pp.

\D W. Edmunson, "Land, Food and Work in Three Javanese Village", unpublished Doctor Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography, December, 1972, 180 pp.

\E LPIIS-UK Satya Wacana, "Laporan Penelitian Evaluasi Petak Tertier Percontohan di Wilayah Sub Prosida dan Pemali Comal", 1973, 152 pp.

\F M. Singarimbun and D.H. Penny, "Population and Poverty in Rural Java: Some Arithmetic from Sriharjo", Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 1973, 115 pp.

\G Soejoso, "Pengaruh Pengairan Terhadap Mata Pencaharaian Penduduk di Desa Parigi (Serang)", Laporan Praktek Mahasisiwa Fakultas Pertanian UI, 1958, 15 pp.

27

\H Warli, "Fungsi Penyakapan Bagi Petani Kecil di Desa Tegalwangi (Mimeo). \I Rusidi, "Dinamika Kelompok Tani dalam Mencapai Tujuannya. Studi Kasus di Desa Amansari Kecamatan

Rengasdengklok, Kabupaten Karawang", Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, IPB, 1979, 149 pp. \J Kliwon Hidayat, "Institutional Ngedok pada Usahatani Padi Sawah di Desa Kraton, Malang", Departemen Social

Ekonomi, Fakultas Pertanian, Unibraw, 1978, 30 pp. \K Kabul Santoso, "Income Distribution and Employment in Three Villages in East Java, (mimeographed), 107 pp. \L Team Universitas Diponegoro, "Seri Laporan Observasi I/I/79", Universitas Diponegoro - Agricultural

Development Council, 22 November 1978. \M Universitas & IKIP Kristen Satya Wacana - Lembaga Penelitian Ilmu Ilmu Sosial, Beberapa Masalah

Pembangunan Pedesaan (Suatu Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Sayung, Kabupaten Demak, Jawa Tengah, 1976), 33 pp.

\N Frans Husken, Landlords, Sharecroppers, and Agriculture Laborers: Changing Labor Relations in Rural Java", Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1979, pp. 104-151. In calculating the population density, we have assumed a family size of 5 then used his information of 678 families and 325 hectares of land in the village.

Therefore, when we examine the agricultural involution concept for the last 100 years we must recognize that Geertz did not consider the problem of landless and unequal distribution of ownership. Perhaps he assumed that before the 1900's this was not a problem. However, at the present time in rural Java these are major tenure issues and greatly influence who benefits from rural development. Unfortunately, in the case studies for the 1923-1930 period no information is available on landless people and distribution and therefore we cannot determine what change has taken place during the last 50 years. Some indication of changing land control during the last 50 years is presented in Table 11 on Gemini and Scorpio villages in East Java. Although the sale of land accelerated beginning in the 1950's there were sales of land before 1940. Therefore, village agricultural land was changing hands before 1940 and if it was the same as at the present time then the wealthier farmers were buying from the marginal farmers causing concentration of land ownership. At least in these two villages in East Java the sale of land occurred frequently and a substantial share of their land has been involved in these transactions. Based on Table 11 and other studies not included in this paper, we believe that in Java there is substantial and frequent sale of land and shifting sizes of operation due to seasonal changes in renting and sharecropping. The involution concept does not provide for concentration of land ownership and land control in Javanese villages. Therefore, involution is not a satisfactory explanation of what is occurring in Javanese villages at the present time.

Table No. 9. Size Distribution of Agricultural Land Ownership by Households in Four Javanese Villages in 1976 and 1978.

Size Distribution (ha)

Kendal, Central Java \A

(%)

Kraton, East Java \B

(%)

Gemini, East Java \C

(%)

Scorpio, East Java \C

(%)

0 49. 37. 63. 38.

.01 - .49 22. 32. 19. 19.

.50 - .99 21. 16. 14. 36.

1.00 + 8. 17. 4. 7. Source : \A Gillian Hart, "Labor Allocation Strategies in Rural Javanese Households", Ph. D Dissertation,

unpublished, Cornell University, 1976, p-91. \B Kliwon Hidayat, "Pranata Sosial Pada Usahatani Padi di Desa Kraton", Sarjana thesis,

unpublished, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia, 1979, p-11. \C Soentoro, Land and Labor Relationship in East Java, M.S. Thesis, unpublished, Bogor Agricultural

University, Indonesia, 1980.

28

Table No.10. Land Control in Gondosari Village, Pati Kabupaten, Central Java, 1976.

Social Classes Number of Households

Percentage (%)

Large land owners (21/2 ha+) 23 4.

Rich and Middle farmers (1/2 - 21/2 ha) 76 11.

Small and Marginal farmers (1/2 ha) 121 18.

Sharecroppers 222 33.

Agricultural laborers 218 32.

Working outsides agriculture 13 2.

Total 678 100. Source: Frans Husken, "Landlords, Sharecroppers and Agricultural Laborers: Changing Labor Relations in

Rural Java", Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1979, p-143.

Table No. 11. Areas of Irrigated Agricultural Land Purchased and Sold in the Land Markets by Years in Gemini and Scorpio Villages, East Java, until December 1978.

Gemini Village Scorpio Village

Year land purchased Area of land in the transaction

(ha) Number of seller

Area of land in the transaction

(ha) Number of seller

Before 1940 4.60 12 4.0 21

1940 - 1949 .57 4 .67 7

1950 - 1959 35.44 78 4.99 28

1960 - 1969 22.84 58 10.95 45

1970 - 1978 17.04 61 15.01 55

Total 80.50 213 35.62 156 Source: Census of Households, December 1978, as reported in Soentoro, "Land and Labor Relationship in

East Java", M.S. Thesis (unpublished), Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia, 1979.

29

Summary

The main purpose of this paper is to examine labor use in rice production in Java during the last 100 years. Because the concept of agricultural involution is intimately tied to the same issue, we have used this concept as a framework for the analysis. Involution consist of a number of propositions that we have tried to test for their validity during the 1880 to 1980 period in the lowland, rice producing villages, primarily in East Java.

The propositions and the results of the test are the following: • High yielding rice varieties use more labor than local varieties per ha per crop: Not Valid

• Labor use per ha per crop has increased over time: Not Valid

• Yields per ha increased over time: Valid

• Cropping intensity per unit of land per year increased over time: Valid (but not tested)

• Returns per person declined over time: Not Valid

• Land and labor institutions for increasing the labor use in rice production: Not Valid

• Land ownership and control relatively evenly distributed: Not Valid

• No large land owners: Not Valid

The author believes that propositions 1, 2, 3, and 5 have been adequately tested and the results reasonably reliable. Proposition 4 on cropping intensity was not tested because of a lack of information in the studies in the 1878-1930 periods. However, intuitively the number of crops per unit of land per year probably has increased in these lowland, well irrigated, rice producing villages for three reasons. The Dutch planted most of the area in a cycle of sugarcane by the factory and rice by the farmers. With the departure of the Dutch a somewhat smaller area of rice fields is planted in sugarcane allowing more crops by the Javanese rice farmers. The second reason is that the high yielding varieties are planted extensively in East Java and the growing season per crop is shorter, allowing for increased cropping intensity. However, there are insect and soil condition problems when rice is grown three times per year or five times in two years. Also, there is a definite limit to higher levels of cropping intensity. The third reason it may be valid is the possibility of better water control. Consequently, proposition 4 may be valid but it is not a crucial element of involution when considering areas that had good irrigation facilities in both the 1920's and the 1970's.

Proposition 6 on land and labor institutions was not tested in this paper, rather previous articles were referred to and based on these reports we assume that this is not valid. Obviously, this is not an adequate test but we believe it indicates that these institutions have not encouraged increased labor use in rice production.

30

Propositions 7 and 8 are not valid for the twenty village case studies. Although these are not representative of lowland rice villages it is a strong enough indication to reject these two propositions. Also we recognize that Geertz did not overtly state these propositions in his concept.

Based on these tests, the agricultural involution concept is not an adequate explanation of what has occurred in rice production in Java during the last 100 years. Obviously, this paper has not attempted to test the concept for the 1800''s - 1900's period when the cultivation system and Dutch penetration were strongly affecting these lowland rice producing villages. But, the evidence presented in Geertz's book on agricultural involution is not adequate for him to state that his concept is valid for the nineteenth century. The author of this paper has always been amazed at the lack of critical examination of this concept. If we only consider agricultural involution as an interesting hypothesis, then it is a significant contribution to academic thought. But, if we believe it is an adequate exposition and description of Javanese rice production in the twentieth century, then we will never understand what is presently occurring in rural Java.

Our only thoughts on the sections in his book about upland, swidden cultivation is that he does not present enough relevant information to be convincing and one only feels that Geertz has not adequately examined upland agriculture.

Besides the emphasis on testing the involution concept, another purpose of this paper has been to examine family and hired labor use, and male and female labor use in rice production. Both of these have not been sufficiently recognized as important in most studies. This paper shows that hired labor and female labor are extremely important in understanding Javanese rice production during the last 100 years. The major change has been a decline in hired female labor use in the last ten years.

In conclusion the results of this analysis show that rice production will not be able to absorb more labor. Government policies for providing employment to rural Javanese in lowland areas cannot assume that rice will provide more employment for the increasing population in these rural areas. An important research topic is how much employment will be created by agriculture (not just rice in lowland areas) as it develops in the future. This paper throws doubt on the ability of rice to absorb more labor and may be an indicator of what is occurring for other crops. Other countries in Asia may be already or will be experiencing this problem. Hopefully, this paper provides some information on what has occurred in Java over the 100 year period.

31

Bibliography

Arminius, "Het Budget van een Javanschen Landbouwer, "De indische Gids Staat-en Letterkundig Maandschrift 11O Jaargang, 1889, Vol. I (pp. 1685 to 1720), Vol. II (pp. 1885 to 1971), Vol. III (pp. 2149 to 2186).

Collier, William L. and Achmad T. Birowo, “Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice

Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers”. Agro-Economic Survey (unpublished), July 1973.

Collier, William L., Jusuf Colter, Sinarhadi, "Choice of Technique in Rice Milling in Java: A

Comment", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, March 1974. Collier, William L. and Soentoro, "Rural Development and Decline of Traditional Village Welfare

Institutions in Java", Development Studies Center, Australian National University (accepted for publication), 1980.

Collier, William L., Soentoro, Gunawan Wiradi, and Makali, "Agricultural Technology and

Institutional Change in Java", Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University, Vol. XII, No. 2, 1974.

Collier, William L., Gunawan Wiradi, and Soentoro, "Recent Changes in Rice Harvesting

Method", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2, July 1973. Collier, William L., Gunawan Wiradi, and Soentoro, "Recent Changes in Rice Harvesting

Method", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2, July 1973. Edmunson, W., "Land, Food and Work in Three Javanese Village", unpublished Doctor Thesis

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography, 1972. Gelpke, Sollewijn J.N.F., Naar Annleiding van Staatsblad, 1878, No. 110, Batavia,

Landsdrikkerij, 1901. Geertz, Clifford, Agricultural Involution, University of California Press, 1963/ Hart, Gillian, Labor Allocation in Rural Javanese Households, unpublished, Ph.D. Dissertation,

Cornell University, 1976. Hartoyo, Sri, "Tingkat Produksi, Tenaga Kerja, Pendapatan Rumah Tangga dan

Kelembagaan", Agro Economic Survey, unpublished, October 1979. Hamid Hidayat, "Desa Sungonlegowo, Kecamatan Bungah, Kabupaten Gresik", Orientation

report, Rural Dynamic Study, Agro Economic Survey, East Java, 1978. Hidayat, Kliwon, Pranata Sosial Pada Usaha Tani Padi di Desa Kraton, Sarjana thesis,

(unpublished), Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, 1979.

32

Hidayat, Kliwon, "Institutional Ngedok pada Usahatani Padi Sawah di Desa Kraton, Malang",

Departemen Social Ekonomi, (mimeo), Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Brawijaya, 1978. Koentjaraningrat, “Tjelapar: A Village in South Central Java”, in Villages in Indonesia, edited by

Koentjaraningrat, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1967. Lyons, Margo, The Basis of Conflict in Rural Java, Berkeley, University of California, Research

Monograph No. 3, Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, 1970. Montgomery, R.D. and D.G. Sisler, “Labor Absorption in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: An Input-

Output Study”, Cornell University, A.E. Res. 75-10, March, 1976. Muijzenberg, Otto D. van den, “Involution or Evolution in Central Luzon”, in Cultural

Anthropology in the Netherlands, edited by Peter Kloss and Henri J.M. Classen, 1975. Ploeg, J. van der, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost

Java)", Landbouw, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. Rusidi, "Dinamika Kelompok Tani dalam Mencapai Tujuannya. Studi Kasus di Desa Amansari

Kecamatan Rengasdengklok, Kabupaten Karawang", M.S. Thesis, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Bogor Agricultural University, 1979.

Santoso, Kabul, "Income Distribution and Employment in Three Villages in East Java,

(mimeographed), Jember University, Jember, Indonesia, 1978. Santoso, Kabul, The Income Distribution and Employment in Desa Sumberrejo, Kecamatan

Pandaan, Kabupaten Pasuruan, unpublished, M.S. Thesis, Bogor, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Bogor Agricultural University, 1977.

Scheltema, A.M.P.A., Deelbouw in Nederlandisch Indie, Ph.D. Dissertation, H. Veenman and

Zonen publishers, Wegeningen, Holland, 1931. Selosoemardjan, Social Changes in Yogyakarta, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1962. Singarimbun, M and D. H. Penny, "Population and Poverty in Rural Java: Some Arithmetic from

Sriharjo", Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 1973.

Smits, M.B., "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26. Social Science Research Institute, "Laporan Penelitian Evaluasi Petak Tertier Percontohan di

Wilayah Sub Prosida dan Pemali Comal", Satya Wacana University, Salatiga, Indonesia, 1978.

33

Social Science Research Institute, "Beberapa Masalah Pembangunan Pedesaan (Suatu Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Sayung, Kabupaten Demak, Jawa Tengah), Satya Wacana University, Salatiga, Indonesia, 1976.

Soejoso, "Pengaruh Pengairan Terhadap Mata Pencaharaian Penduduk di Desa Parigi

(Serang)", Laporan Praktek Mahasisiwa Fakultas Pertanian UI, 1958. Soelistyo, "Creating Employment Opportunities in the Rural Areas of East Java". Ph. D.

Dissertation (unpublished), University of Colorado, 1975. Soentoro, Land and Labor Relationship in East Java, M.S. Thesis research, first draft, Bogor

Agricultural University, Indonesia, 1979. Soentoro, "Distribusi Tanah di Desa Gemarang", Agro Economic Survey, East Java, (mimeo),

1979. Team Diponegoro University, "Seri Laporan Observasi I/I/79", (mimeo), 1978. Vink, G. J., De Grondslagen van het Indonesiche Landbouwbedrijf, Ph.D. Dissertation,

published by H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningan, The Netherlands, 1941. Vink, G. J., Eiland Djojodihardjo, and M. J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijsculture in het

Gehuct Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia.

Vink, G. J., Eiland Djojodihardjo, and Goenoeng Iskandar, "Partieele Baedrijfsontleding te Djetis (Modjokerto)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 2, Buitenzorg, Indonesia.

Vries, E. de, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en

Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, Buitenzorg, Indonesia.

Vries, E. de, Landbouw in Welvaart in het Regentschap Pasoeroean, Mededeeling, No. 16, H.

Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, Holland, 1931. Warli, "Fungsi Penyakapan Bagi Petani Kecil di Desa Tegalwangi". (Mimeo). 1958. Wiradi, Gunawan, "Proses Panen dan Alat yang Digunakan: Suatu Catatan", Memorandum No.

2, (mimeo), Agro Economic Survey, May 1974.

Appendix - 1

Appendix

Table 1. Labor Use in Rice Production in the Kediri District (East Java) in 1878. \A

I t e m Hours/ha Seedbed

Plowing ( 2x ) 4. Harrowing ( 3x ) 4. Spading ( 1x ) 4. Other soil preparation 7. Repairing bunds 3. Throwing out weeds 3. Planting seeds 21. Building fence around seedbed 17

Sub Total 63. Field Preparation

Plowing (first) 60. Plowing (second) 44. Harrowing (first) 24. Harrowing (second) 24. Harrowing (third) 24. Spading 120. Other land preparation 179. Repairing bunds 73. Throwing out weeds 47.

Sub Total 595. Transplanting

1. Pulling and distributing seedlings 26. 2. Planting seedlings 204.

Sub Total 230. Weeding

First weeding after 20 days 90. Second weeding 204.

Sub Total 294 Guarding the field and controlling water 300. Harvesting 286. Transporting, storing, and drying the paddy 120.

Total 1888. Source: J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Naar Annleiding van Staatsblad, no. 110, 1878, pp. 51-53. \A Dr. Gelpke described how he estimated the labor use. He actually measured the hours it takes to perform each

operation and the area in which they did. Presumably, he did this in the Kediri area where he was the Assistant Resident for Ngrowo (Kediri) between 1874 to 1880.

Appendix -2

Table 2. Labor Allocation by Months for a Javanese Farmer (Tjowikromo in Bendo village) in 1886/87

Labor Allocation (hours) by Months Item Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Total %

Unpaid labor required by Government (Dinas Rodi)

1. Irrigation work 7 5 0 9 109 0 37 4 8 17 4 9 209 9. 2. Road construction 29 12 6 6 2 11 6 6 6 6 15 80 185 8.

Unpaid labor required by the Village (Dinas Desa)

1. Road construction 6 8 0 3 0 3 17 1 17 5 13 31 104 5. 2. Irrigation work 0 0 3 1 1 0 74 21 28 37 0 0 165 7. 3. Guard duty 20 67 44 40 40 10 30 50 65 50 26 30 466 21. 4. Work for village

leader 0 19 12 14 0 0 17 0 0 0 4 20 86 4.

Labor for own activities 1. Land cultivation 83 44 46 66 28 15 41 33 69 49 11 21 506 22. 2. Work in house 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 2 28 1. 3. Additional work 62 132 89 58 43 2 29 13 0 1 0 0 429 19. 4. Hired labor paid in

cash or kind 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 16 15 3 4 81 4.

2259 100.

Source: Arminius, "Het Budget van enn Javaanschen Landbouwer, De Indische Gids Staat- en Letterkundig Maandschrift, 11O Jaargang (1889), 2O deal, p-

Appendix - 3

Table 3. Labor Allocation by Months for a Javanese Farmer (Sodrono in Kalimeneng Wetan village) in 1886/87.

Labor Allocation (hours) Item Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Total %

Unpaid labor required by Government (Dinas Rodi) 1. Irrigation work 0 0 0 0 5 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 41 2. 2. Road construction 11 34 0 0 0 11 12 0 0 0 10 6 84 3.

Unpaid labor required by the Village (Dinas Desa) 1. Weaving mats (bilik) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 - 2. Official work for the village leaders 0 36 36.5 8 29 43 42 20 11 0 0 0 225.5 9. 3. Guard duty 5 3 0 0 0 .5 1 0 11 0 0 53.5 64 3. 4. Work for village leader 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 - 5. Irrigation work 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.5 15 0 0 0 0 60.5 2. 6. Guard duty 9 0 0 0 9 19 30 44 17 0 0 3 122 5.

Labor for own activities 1. Farm production operations:

Weru orchad 23 16 3 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 54 2. Teak tree orchard 0 0 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 - Dry land Ag. 10 4.5 0 17 64 29.5 14.5 1.5 0 10 25 29 205 8. Irrigated fields 4 0 43.5 42 41 4 0 9 69 25 17 6 260.5 11.

2. Work in house, gardenm and orchard 46 58 17 54 37 40 7.5 31.5 22.5 8 27.5 23.5 372.5 15. 3. Cutting grass and takin care of cattle 34 29.5 40 27.5 60 64 43.5 23 22 51 63 18 475.5 19. 4. Selling goods 19 6 7 0 6 11.5 9.5 3.5 4 0 7.5 2 76 3. 5. Looking for seed and goods 39 0 0 0 8 0 0 13.5 5 0 5 0 70.5 2. 6. Hired labor (cash or in kind) 3.5 13 29.5 0 3 38 40.5 75.5 57 46 7 0 313 13. 7. Rice harvest labor for others (in kind) 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1. 8. Rice harvest labor in own diel field 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 4.5 -

2259 100.

Appendix - 4

Table 4. Average Labor Use and Yields for Rice Production in Kenep Kampong\A in Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1925/26.

I t e m s Rice fields before

renting to sugarcane factories.\B

Rice fields after being used for

cane by the factories.\C

Number of respondent.\D 31 39 Size of Operation

Average (ha) .41 .33 Range (ha) .13 - 3.14 .16 - 1.39

Seedbed 1. Plowing and harrowing with

a. Carabou (male labor) Average (ha) 5. 10.0 Range (hours/ha) n.a. n.a.

2. Cultivation (male labor) Average (ha) 21.0 82.0\E

Range (hours/ha) n.a. Held Preparation

1. Plowing with a carabou (male labor) Average (ha) 79.0 46.0 Range (hours/ha) 34. - 179. 0. - 98.

2. Harrowing with a carabou (male labor) Average (ha) 32. 19. Range (hours/ha) 11. - 67. 0. - 55.

3. Pilling in sugarcane ditches (male labor) Average (ha) 0. 113. Range (hours/ha) 0. 0. - 272.

4. Repairing bunds(male labor) Average (ha) 302. 269. Range (hours/ha) 147. - 469. 0. - 441.

Transplanting 1. Pulling and distributing seedlings

Average male labor (ha) 149. 115. Range (hours/ha) 67. - 277. 30. - 291.

2. Planting seedling a. Average female labor (hours/ha) 335. 277.

Range (hours/ha) 204. - 560. 121. - 428. b. Average child labor (hours/ha) n.a. 20.

Range (hours/ha) n.a. 0. - 70. Weeding

1. Average male labor (hours/ha) 40. 40. Range (hours/ha) 0. - 118. 0. - 292.

2. Average female labor (hours/ha) 394. 178. Range (hours/ha) 78. - 1169. 0. - 375.

3. Average child labor (hours/ha) 0. 36. Range (hours/ha) 0. 0. - 169.

Guarding against birds 1. Average male labor (hours/ha) 4. 0.

Range (hours/ha) 0. - 68. 0. 2. Average female labor (hours/ha) 21. 0.

Range (hours/ha) 0. - 589. 0.

Appendix - 5

I t e m s Rice fields before

renting to sugarcane factories.\B


cane by the factories.\C

Harvesting

1. Average male labor (hours/ha) 350. 219. Range (hours/ha) 109. - 797. 0. - 509.

2. Average female labor (hours/ha) 526. 407. Range (hours/ha) 211. - 1060. 165. - 822.

3. Average child labor (hours/ha) n.a. 87. Range (hours/ha) n.a. 0. - 223.

Total 1. Average male labor (hours/ha) 982. 913.

Range (hours/ha) 2. Average female labor (hours/ha) 1276. 863.

Range (hours/ha) 3. Average child labor (hours/ha) n.a. n.a.

Range (hours/ha) n.a. n.a. TOTAL 2258. 1919.

RANGE Percentage labor use

1. Male (%) 43. 48. 2. Female (%) 57. 45. 3. Child (%) n.a. 7.

Yield (wet paddy) Average (ton/ha) 5.43 4.30 Range (ton/ha) 2.14 - 7.42 3.45 - 5.26

Paddy (wet) paid to harvesters Average (ton/ha) 1.08 .46 Range (ton/ha) .43 - 1.48 .11 - 73

Source: The calculation in this table were made by the author based on the information by respondent

in the Appendices of G.J. Vink, Eiland Djojodihardjo, and M. J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijsculture in het Gehuct Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja)" (Analysis of the Rice Cultivation at Kenep Kampong in Surabaya Residency), Landbouw, Vol. VII, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, 1931/31, Table 1 and 2, pp 439 - 442.

\A Kenep Kampong is in Djoenwangi Desa, Krian Kecamatan, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java. \B In 1925/26 as it in 1979 the fields in the villages are rotated between rice and sugarcane. The fields

when used for rice before renting to the sugar cane factories are called glanggangan. \C These fields had the cane harvested and the sugar cane factory has returned the fields to the

farmerns. These fielde are called dongkelan. \D Based of information in the paper, there are 64 people who have rights (gogolan) to the communal

land. However, some have land in both the before and after sugar cane areas. Usually, in this situation each of the 64 should have land rights in each are. However, because of renting to others there are only 31 farmers in the after sugar cane areas and 39 in the before cane areas.

It appears that one gogolan is .128 ha (before renting), .163 ha. after renting, and the amount in cane was not given should be in the proportion of 1/3 : 1/3 : 1/3 which would then approximately .15. Therefore, one gogolan must have been about 44a ha.

\E Of this 82 hours male labor, 36 hours was to fill in the irrigation ditches for the sugar cane.

Appendix - 6

Table 5. Average labor use in rice production in Kenep Kampong (Djoenwangi village, Krian Kecamatan, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in Wet Season 1925/26.

I t e m s

Rice fields before renting to sugarcane factories.

(Glanggangan)


cane by the factories.

(Dongkelan) Number of respondent. \A 31 39 Size of Operation

Average (ha) .41 .33 Range (ha) .128 - 3.138 .162 - 1.385

Size distribution of operations 0

Number 33 25 .10 to .19

Number 11 22 Ave. size (ha) .13 .17

.20 to .39 Number 13 9 Ave. size (ha) .28 .32




1.00 + Number 2 2 Ave. size (ha) 2.16 1.31

Soil Preparation

1. Plowing with a caribou Average male labor (hours/ha). \B 79.0 48.5 Range (hours/ha) 33.5 - 178.5 18.3 - 98.3 Number or respondents 31 37

2. Harrowing with a caribou Average male labor (hours/ha). 31.6 21.7 Range (hours/ha) 11.0 - 67.0 7.3 - 55.3 Number or respondents 31 35

3. Filling in sugar cane irrigation ditches Average male labor (hours/ha). 0. 118.8 Range (hours/ha) 0. 24.0 - 272.0 Number or respondents 0. 37

4. Harrowing with a caribou Average male labor (hours/ha). 302.4 275.8 Range (hours/ha) 146.8 - 468.5 42.5 - 441.0 Number or respondents 31 38

Appendix - 7

I t e m s


(Glanggangan)



(Dongkelan) Transplanting

1. Pulling seedlings and distributing Average male labor (hours/ha). 149.0 114.8 Range (hours/ha) 67.0 - 277.0 29.8 - 291.3 Number or respondents 31 39

2. Planting seedlings Average female labor (hours/ha). 335.4 277.3 Range (hours/ha) 203.5 - 560.0 120.8 - 427.8 Number or respondents 31 39

Average child labor (hours/ha). 0 33.9 Range (hours/ha) 0 4.8 - 70.3 Number or respondents 0 23

Sub total planting Average female labor (hours/ha). 335.4 297.3 Range (hours/ha) 203.5 - 560.0 193 - 445.5 Number or respondents 31 39

Weeding Average male labor (hours/ha). 45.5 53.8 Range (hours/ha) 2.8 - 118.0 6.3 - 292.3 Number or respondents 27 29

Average female labor (hours/ha). 393.8 182.7 Range (hours/ha) 78.0 - 1169.0 15.3 - 375. Number or respondents 31 38


Sub total Average weeding labor (hours/ha). 433.5 254.1 Range (hours/ha) 132.8 - 1179.8 56.3 - 442. Number or respondents 31 39

Guarding against birds Average male labor (hours/ha). 43.3 0 Range (hours/ha) 26.8 - 68.3 0 Number or respondents 3 0

Average female labor (hours/ha). 327.6 0 Range (hours/ha) 66.5 - 588.8 0 Number or respondents 2 0

Sub total Guarding against bird: Average female labor (hours/ha). 261.7 0 Range (hours/ha) 26.8 - 623.5 0 Number or respondents 3 0

Appendix - 8

I t e m s


(Glanggangan)



(Dongkelan) Harvesting

Average male labor (hours/ha). 350.3 231.1 Range (hours/ha) 109.3 - 196.8 79.8 - 509.3 Number or respondents 31 37

Average female labor (hours/ha). 525.5 407.4 Range (hours/ha) 211.0 - 1059.8 165.3 - 822. Number or respondents 31 39


Sub total Harvesting labor

Average female labor (hours/ha). 875.8 713.6 Range (hours/ha) 541. - 1693.5 286.0 - 1555.3 Number or respondents 31 39

Total labor use

1. Average male labor (hours/ha). 956.2 820.9 Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 31 39

2. Average female labor (hours/ha). 1275.9 862.8 Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 31 39

3. Average child labor (hours/ha). n.a. 143.0 Range (hours/ha) n.a. Number or respondents n.a. 39

4. Total labor use

Average (hours/ha). 2232.1 1826.7 Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 31 39

Yield (wet paddy ton/ha)

Average 5.43 4.30 Range 2.141 - 7.42 3.45 - 5.26 Number or respondents 31 39

Paddy paid to harvesters (ton/ha) Average 1.08 .46 Range .43 - 1.48 Number or respondents 30

Sumber: Same as Table 4 in this appendix. The difference in these table is that in Table 4 we

have used the total number of respondents when averaging labor use for each activity. In table 5 we have used the number of respondents who performed the operation, and not the total number.

Appendix - 9

Table 6. Average labor use for rice production in Sawo village and Karangmalang village in Ngawi dan Jaan village in Berbak District, East Java, in the Wet Season between 1925 and 1929.

Items Sawo village in Ngawi, 1928/29

Karangmalang village in Ngawi

1926/27 Jaan village in Berbek 1925/26

Number of respondents 26\A 29\B 12\C

Size of operation (ha) .56 .66 1.79 Seedbed

1. Plowing with carabou a. Family male

Days/ha 1.3 1.7 3.2 Hours/ha 2.6 5.4 6.3

b. Hired male Days/ha .7 0 0 Hours/ha 1.2 0 0

2. Harrowing with carabou a. Family male

Days/ha 1.4 3.4 .4 Hours/ha 1.9 9.3 .7

b. Hired male Days/ha .8 0 0 Hours/ha .8 0 0

3. Spading a. Family male

Days/ha 3.7 4.2 .9 Hours/ha 10.1 12.5 1.5

b. Hired male Days/ha .2 0 0 Hours/ha .5 0 0

c. Family (child) male Days/ha .3 0 0 Hours/ha .7 0 0

4. Planting of seeds a. Family male

Days/ha 1.7 3.3 .7 Hours/ha 1.3 1.9 1.3

b. Hired male Days/ha 1.0 0 0 Hours/ha .8 0 0

5. Watering a. Family male

Days/ha 1.4 0 0 Hours/ha 1.3 0 0

Field preparation

1. Plowing with carabou a. Family male

Days/ha 6.1 9.5 10.8 Hours/ha 17.4 21.0 30.9

Appendix - 10




b. Hired male

Days/ha 3.2 1.6 Hours/ha 9.6 5.7

2. Harrowing with carabou a. Family male

Days/ha 4.8 10.3 Hours/ha 17.3 21.4

b. Hired male Days/ha 2.8 1.7 Hours/ha 8.2 7.2

3. Spading a. Family male

Days/ha 28.4 21.3 Hours/ha 161.9 102.1

b. Family (male) child 1 Days/ha 1.4 0 Hours/ha 4.8 0

c. Hired male Days/ha 2.8 1.6 Hours/ha 10.8 9.7

d. Family female Days/ha 0 0 Hours/ha 0 0

Transplanting

1. Pulling seedlings a. Family male

Days/ha .1 3.5 Hours/ha .5 7.7

b. Hired male Days/ha 14.8 13.3 Hours/ha 60.8 88.4

2. Distributing seedlings a. Family male

Days/ha 1.0 (incl. with pulling) (incl. with pulling)Hours/ha 3.9 - -

b. Hired male Days/ha 2.6 - - Hours/ha 10.5 - -

3. Planting seedlings a. Family male

Days/ha 1.5 2.4 0 Hours/ha 8.0 12.8 0

b. Family female Days/ha 1.3 2.0 19.1 Hours/ha 6.3 10.3 67.0

c. Hired female Days/ha 46.6 52.8 28.0 Hours/ha 224.4 289.8 160.8

Appendix - 11




Weeding and Irrigating

1. Family male Days/ha 5.2 5.1 2.0 Hours/ha 9.9 21.2 11.2

2. Family female Days/ha 0 5.2 1.8 Hours/ha 0 21.8 4.2

Harvesting and Transporting

a. Family female Days/ha 33.9 41.4 11.3 Hours/ha 247.7 262.2 76.3

b. Hired female Days/ha 32.1 36.5 96.2 Hours/ha 196.2 168.3 573.4

c. Family male Days/ha 0 15.9 3.6 Hours/ha 0 70.6 21.0

d. Hired male Days/ha 0 3.1 10.0 Hours/ha 0 24.7 68.9

Total Labor Use

a. Family male Days/ha 56.6 80.6 58.7 Hours/ha 236.1 285.9 233.5

b. Hired male Days/ha 28.9 21.3 15.2 Hours/ha 103.2 135.7 88.1

c. Family female Days/ha 35.2 48.6 32.9 Hours/ha 254. 294.3 149.8

d. Hired female Days/ha 78.7 89.3 124.2 Hours/ha 420.6 458.1 734.2

e. Child (male) family Days/ha 1.7 0. Hours/ha 5.5 0.

Total Days/ha 199.4 239.8 231.0 Hours/ha 1019.4 1174.0 1205.6

Percentages of labor use (%) (%) (%)

1. Family male Days/ha (%) 29. 34. 25. Hours/ha (%) 24. 24. 19.

2. Hired male Days/ha (%) 14. 9. 7. Hours/ha (%) 10. 12. 7.

Appendix - 12




3. Family female

Days/ha (%) 13. 20. 14. Hours/ha (%) 25. 25. 13.

4. Hired female Days/ha (%) 39. 37. 54. Hours/ha (%) 41 39 61

Yields (wet paddy) (ton/ha) (ton/ha) (ton/ha) (ton/ha)

Average 1.90 2.19 n.a. Harvesters share (bawon)

Average .13 .14 n.a. Source: The calculations were made by the author based on information in the Appendices in

E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, pp. 690, 695, 696.

\A The report mentioned 28 fields and based on the table in the report it appears there were 26

respondents. The 28 fields cover an area of 14.5 ha. \B The report states there were 31 fields but since two were combined there are 29 respondents.

The 31 fields cover an are of 19 ha. \C The report stated there were 12 fields and 12 respondents and covers an area of 21.5 ha.

Appendix - 13

Table 7. Average labor use (hours/ha) in rice production in Djatisari village (Tempeh District, Kabupaten Lumajang, East Java) in the Wet Season 1929/30 and 1930/31. \A

Items Wet Season 1929/30

Wet Season 1930/31

Number of Respondent 9 25 Size of operation:

Average (ha) .94 .83 Range (ha) .4 to 1.4 .5 to 1.4

Seedbed (hours/ha) 1. Plowing and harrowing 10. 15. 2. Spading 6 3 3. Planting seeds 11 21

Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Plowing and harrowing 127 156 2. Spading and preparation for planting 62 67

Transplanting (hours/ha) 1. Pulling and distribution seedlings 26 42 2. Transplanting 206 216

Water control (hours/ha) 40 66 Weeding and replacing dead plants (hours/ha) 200. 224. Harvesting (hours/ha) 467 501 Drying and storing (hours/ha) 76 68

Total (hours/ha) 1231 1377

Percentage labor use: \B Family

Male (%) 14. 16. Female (%) 7. 8. Child (%) 6. 7.

Neighbors Male (%) 3. 4. Female (%) 0. 0. Child (%) 0. 0.

Hired Male (%) 18. 10. Female (%) 43. 46. Child (%) 9. 9.

Source: J. van der Ploeg and Koesno Adirono, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost Java)", Landbouw, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-224 and 225.

\A These estimates are as presented in Ploeg's paper. However, they are averages of those who responded

on each operation and not the total number of respondents which if used for the averages would give different averages. The number of respondents for each operation for the two seasons by first 1929/30 then 1930/31 were Seedbed: Plowing and Harrowing (3,20), Spading (2,20), Planting seeds (3,20); Field Preparation: Plowing and Harrowing (9,25), spading and preparations (9,25); Transplanting: Pulling and distributing seeds (8,19), transplanting (9,25); Water control (9.25); weeding and replacing dead plants (8,25); Harvesting (9,16); and Drying and storing (7,58).

\B The percentages do not include plowing and harrowing with carabou which is male labor, there were:

1929/30 1930/31 Owner 61.2 65 Neighbor 5. 14. Hired 34. 21.

it was impossible to combine this with the percentages in the table.

Appendix - 14

Table 8. Average labor use in rice production in Prijetan village, North Surabaya Residency, East Java, and in Maja village in Cirebon Residency, West Java in 1923 and 1924.

Cirebon 1924 I t e m

Prijetan Dry Season

1923. (hours/ha)\A

Prijetan Dry Season

1924. (hours/ha)

Kuningan (hours/ha)

Maja (hours/ha)

Field Preparation. \B

1. Plowing with carabou (male labor) Average 48 70 91 69 Range 19-86 29-136 57-180 23-116 Size of sample 53 43 11 11

2. Harrowing with carabou (male labor) Average 36 44 35 28 Range 6-74 14-89 11-57 Size of sample 52 43 9 11

Total of Plowing and Harrowing with carabou (male labor)

Average 58 114 120 97 Range 23-143 57-216 57-270 34-143 Size of sample 52 43 11 11

3. Repairing dikes (male labor) Average 58 42 150 284 Range 13-121 7-89 29-213 43-463 Size of sample 52 38 8 11

Seedbed (male labor) Average - - 88 74 Range - - 29-161 21-214 Size of sample - - 10 11

Transplanting 1. Planting seeds and preparation

(male labor)

Average 58 91 340 329 Range 0-120 14-196 24-743 129-639 Size of sample 52 38 11 11

2. Pulling the seedling (male labor) Average 63 59 66 66 Range 10-131 17-204 57-79 26-136 Size of sample 52 38 5 10

3. Planting the seedling (female labor) Average 261 261 284 278 Range 95-500 96-533 150-487 150-371 Size of sample 52 39 11 11

Weeding (female labor) Average 28\E - 421 124 Range 0-86 - 250-600 84-157 Size of sample 43 - 11 11

Appendix - 15

Cirebon 1924 I t e m

Prijetan Dry Season

1923. (hours/ha)\A

Prijetan Dry Season

1924. (hours/ha)

Kuningan (hours/ha)

Maja (hours/ha)

Harvesting (female labor)

Average - - 406 277 Range - - 214-571 150-379 Size of sample - - 10 11

Post Harvest Average - - - 211 Range - - - 36-476 Size of sample - - - 11

Yield of rice (ton/ha) Average 3.25 - 1.96 2.41 Range 2.24-5.63 - 1.12-2.68 1.72-3.09 Size of sample 35 - 11 11

Source: M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I,

1925/26, Buitenzoegm Indonesia, pp. 225-299. The information in the table has been compiled from throughout this article.

\A Smit's' states that there was sufficient irrigation water for the crops in the dry season 1923. |B Smits' stated that they did not have sufficient irrigation water in the dry season 1924 and had to

use rain water as an additional source. \C Smits calculated that it required one man working with the carabou. \D In his report Smits stated that for an area of rice field of 48 bahu for 49 days they used 17

carabou and cattle. Beside this, he mentioned that in his research for a two year period, 66 carabou and sapi were used on 100 bahu rice fields and in 1925 they plowed amd harrowed their fields for a period of 70 days. The maximum number of men for soil preparation was 90 for 100 bahu area for 11/2 months. This is for the Prijetan area.

\E In 1923 the planting season lasted 34 days in Prijetan, and 19 of these days stood out as the most active. The number of women workers during this period varied from 5 to 153 for 50 bahu area of rice yields. In 1924 the planting season lasted 34 days also, though 33 of these days were active. The number of women in 1924 varied from 5 to 164 per day for the 48 bahu rice field are. Based on this information Smits' estimated that a 100 bahu area required 124 women per day for a 33 day planting season. (p-288). In 1923 they average 5.6 hours per day, and in 1924, these women averaged 3.4 hours of planting work per day.

Appendix - 16

Table 9. Labor use in rice production in the dry season 1923/1924 in Prijetan in North Surabaya, East Java and in the Wet Season in Kuningan and Maja in Cirebon Residency in West Java.

I t e m Prijetan

Dry Season 1923.

Prijetan Dry Season

1924.

Kuningan Wet Season

1923 or 1924

Maja Wet Season

1923 or 1924

Seedbed (persemaian) (male labor)

Average (hours/bahu) 61.9 51.5 Range (hours/bahu) 20.-112.5 15.-150. Size of sample 10 11

Soil Preparation. 1. Plowing with carabou or sapi

(membajak) (male labor)

Average (hours/bahu) 33.3 Range (hours/bahu) 12-60 Size of sample 53

2. Harrowing with carabou or sapi (menggaru) (male labor)

Average (hours/bahu) 24.3 Range (hours/bahu) 4-51 Size of sample 52

Total of Plowing and Harrowing with carabou (male labor)

Average (hours/bahu) 58.6 80.1 83.5 67.9 Range (hours/bahu) 16-100 40.-151. 40.-189. 24.-100. Size of sample 52 43 11 11

3. Repairing dikes (male labor) (memperbaiki galangan)

Average (hours/bahu) 42 29.6 46.2 199.0 Range (hours/bahu) -78.3 5.-62. 0.-149. 30.-324. Size of sample 43 11 11

4. Spading (memacul) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) 41.3 62. 238. 230. Range (hours/bahu) 0.-120. 10.-137. 16.5-520 90.-447. Size of sample 50 11 11

Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings (male labor)

(mencabut bibit)

Average (hours/bahu) 45.3 41.0 199.1 203.8 Range (hours/bahu) 6.6-91.6 12.-143. 133.5-341 140.-260. Size of sample 51 5 10

2. Planting the seedling (female labor) (menanam)

Average (hours/bahu) 175. 178. 220. 237. Range (hours/bahu) 66.-350. 67.-373. 105.-386. 105.-309. Size of sample 52 11 11

Appendix - 17

I t e m Prijetan

Dry Season 1923.

Prijetan Dry Season

1924.

Kuningan Wet Season

1923 or 1924

Maja Wet Season

1923 or 1924

Weeding (female labor) (menyiang)

Average (hours/bahu) 19.3 295 87 Range (hours/bahu) 0-60 175.-420 71.-110. Size of sample 43 11

Harvesting (panen) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) 284.5 194.0 Range (hours/bahu) 150.400 105.-265. Size of sample 10 11

Post Harvest, drying and transport Average (hours/bahu) 114 Range (hours/bahu) 105.-265 Size of sample 11

Yield (wer paddy) Average (hours/bahu) 36.8 22.0 26.9 Range (hours/bahu) 12.5-30.0 19.3-34.6 Size of sample 32 11 11

Source: Same as Table 8.

Appendix -18

Table 10. Average labor use in rice production in various locations in Java in 1924 to 1926. \A

I t e m Cirebon Semarang Banten Periangan Surabaya Rembang Surakarta Besuki Seedbed (persemaian)

Average (hours/bahu) 61 70 Range (hours/bahu) 15-150 (Demak) 28-125 Sample size 61 15 46

First plowing (membajak) (dry

season) (wet

season) (wet season) Average (hours/bahu) 51.3 18.3 36.6 41.5 34.6 31.3 46.8 30 Range (hours/bahu) 16-81 16-25 25-58 25-71 15-87 17-60 12-81 21-45 Sample size 25 6 7 26 106 20 103 15

Second plowing Average (hours/bahu) 31.6 29.0 34.0 27.3 Range (hours/bahu) 20-43 15-55 22-54 21-40 Sample size 16 176 51 15

First Harrowing (wet season) Average (hours/bahu) 19.9 16 27 10.4 24.5 12.3 Range (hours/bahu) 3-63 9-26 7-61 5-18 16-70 6-18 Sample size 21 26 59 10 69 17

Second Harrowing (menggaru) Average (hours/bahu) 14. 26.2 29.3 Range (hours/bahu) 9-20 8-48 13-47 Sample size 16 139 17

Repairing Dikes dry season (memperbaiki galengan) 1923 1924

Average (hours/bahu) 48 41 29.6 54 Range (hours/bahu) 37-58 9-78 5-62 30-96 Sample size 6 52 43 12

19

I t e m Cirebon Semarang Banten Periangan Surabaya Rembang Surakarta Besuki

Spading (memacul) Average (hours/bahu) 84.4 135 512 Range (hours/bahu) 31-230 50-200 375-666 Sample size 21 12 18

Pulling seedling dry season (mencabut bibit) 1923 1925

Average (hours/bahu) 46.5 45.3 41 Range (hours/bahu) 18-95 6.7-91.7 15-143 Sample size 51 38

1924 1923 1923 Planting seedling (menanam) (dry season)

(dry season)

(wet season)

Average (hours/bahu) 202 106 178 175 151 217 246 Range (hours/bahu) 133-341 67-150 n.a. n.a. 43-320 119-345 66-480 Sample size 15 17 44 52 193 13 74

Weeding (menyiang) Average (hours/bahu) 177 251 169 270 Range (hours/bahu) 61-420 61-150 125-240 54-781 Sample size 25 17 16 88

Harvesting (panen, ani-ani) Padi bulu Padi cereh Average (hours/bahu) 237 495 378 221 587 333 364 321 Range (hours/bahu) 105-400 166-936 200-832 180-260 320-1184 160-500 212-488 132-479 Sample size 21 48 31 6 25 10 14 19

20

I t e m Cirebon Semarang Banten Periangan Surabaya Rembang Surakarta Besuki

Harvesting (panen, sickle) Average (hours/bahu) 124 Range (hours/bahu) 24-210 Sample size 11

Yields (wet paddy, ani-ani) Average (hours/bahu) 25.1 26.4 32.5 44.7 41.5 32.0 34.7 44.4 Range (hours/bahu) 17.1-34.7 11.8-57.2 12-64.5 40-51.4 19.2-69-7 14-55 17.8-47.0 32.0-54.5 Sample size 21 48 31 6 25 10 14 19

Yields (wet paddy, sickels) Average (hours/bahu) 22.3 Range (hours/bahu) 8.4-36.4 Sample size 11

Source: M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, Buitenzoegm Indonesia, pp. 225-272. \A Judging by the information available in this report, Smits had people send him the information continued in this table. After he analyzed the data, he state (p-270) that

since there were deficiencies in the data, they would try a different method to analyze labor use. This second method is reporter also in this article and is in table.

Appendix - 21

Table 11. Comparison of female and combined male/female harvest labor in Semarang Residency in 1924.

Item Only women Men and Women

Simple size 5 14 Yield (wet paddy pikul/bahu):

Average 43.9 44.7 Range 32. - 54.5 44.7 - 52.9

Work hours per bahu:

Average 249 346 Range 132 - 479 287 - 392

Yield (wet paddy kati per hour):

Average 20.6 12.8 Range 11 - 33 9 - 16

Source: M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I,

1925/26, p-269.

Appendix - 22

Table 12. Average labor use in rice production in Sidomulyo village (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1968/69.

I t e m

Local and National Improved Rice Varieties

(15 respondent with an average size of .25 ha)\A

High Yielding Rice Varieties

(30 respondent with an average size of .54 ha)\B

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 1. Seedbed

Family male 12 48 7 27 Hired male 4 15.5 6 23.2

Sub Total 16 63.5 13 50.2 2. Field preparation

Family male 29 114.1 13.2 53 Hired male 41.3 162.1 32 126

Sub Total 70.3 276.2 45.2 179 3. Transplanting

a. Spading Family male 4.8 19.2 3. 11 Hired male 3 12 3.1 13.3

b. Spading Family male 4.8 19.2 2.4 10 Hired male 4.8 19.2 5 19 Hired female 3 5.3 0 0

c. Planting Family male 0.5 2.1 0 0 Hired male 51.2 102.4 50 101

Sub Total 72.1 179.4 63.5 154.3 4. Fertilizing

Family male 12.8 51.2 10.2 41 5. Spraying

Family male 0.5 2.1 0.1 0.2 Hired male 0 0 0.7 2.7

Sub Total 0.5 2.1 0.8 2.9 6. Weeding

Family male 10 39.5 5.4 21.7 Hired male 0.5 2.1 0.7 2.7 Hired female 84.3 169 78 156

Sub Total 94.8 210.6 84.1 180.4 7. Harvesting

Hired male 81 161.1 87 174 5. Drying and storing

Family male 31 123 18 71.4 Hired male 0 0 2.2 9

Sub Total 31 123 20.2 80.4

Appendix - 23

I t e m



High Yielding Rice Varieties

(30 respondent with an average size of .54 ha)\B

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Total labor use

Family male 105.4 418.4 59.30 235.3 Hired male 53.6 210.9 49.7 195.9 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female 219.5 437.8 215 431

Total 378.5 1067.1 324 862.2 Percentage labor use

Family male 28. 39. 18. 27. Hired male 14. 20. 15. 23. Family female 0. 0. 0. 0. Hired female 58. 41. 67. 50.

Source: The author calculated these average based on the original interview questionnaires

carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of Wet Season 1968/1969

THIS TABLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT WAS FINISHED AFTER THE TEXT WAS TYPED.

Appendix - 24

Table 13. Average labor use for rice (local varieties) production in Janti village, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1968/69.

I t e m Workdays/ha Work hours/ha

No. of respondents 26 26 Size of operation (ha) .58 ha .58 Seedbed:

Family male 7.0 Hired male 9.0

Sub Total 16.0 Field preparation:


Sub Total 93.4 Transplanting:

Family male 6.3 Hired male 8.6 Hired female 74.1

Sub Total 89.0 Fertilizing:

Family male 12.3 Hired male 2.5 9.8

Sub Total 14.8 58.1 Spraying:

Family male .3 1.3 Weeding:

Family male 1.5 5.8 Hired female 152.2 304.4

Sub Total 153.7 310.2 Harvesting:

Hired female 97.3 194.7 Drying and storing

Family male 26.3 102.7 Hired male 5.6 22.3 Hired female .7 1.3

Sub Total 32.6 126.3 Total labor use

Family male 79.3 309.3 Hired male 93.5 373.5 Family female 0 0 Hired female 324.3 648.5

Total 497.1 1331.3 Percentage labor use

Family male (%) 16. 23. Hired male (%) 19. 28. Family female (%) 0. 0. Hired female (%) 65. 49.

Source: The author calculated these average based on the original interview questionnaires carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of Wet Season 1968/1969 harvest.

Appendix - 25

Table 14. Average labor use in days and hours per ha by varieties for producing rice in Sidomulyo village, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.

Local and National Improved Varieties


IR Varieties (20 respondent with an average size of .46 ha)\B

I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours

Field preparation

1. Plowing with carabou I Family male 1.3 5.3 .4 1.6 Hired male 4.7 14.1 2.5 10.0

2. Harrowing with carabou I Family male .8 3.2 .5 2.0 Hired male 3.3 28.1 8.0 32.2

3. Plowing with carabou II Family male .5 2.1 .4 1.6 Hired male 4.4 18.1 2.5 10.1

4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male .3 1.1 .1 .3 Hired male 1.0 4.3 1.1 4.4

5. Spading Family male 10.4 48.6 5.0 27.1 Hired male 35.0 176.8 28.2 154.7

6. Repairing bunds Family male 8.8 41. 3.6 18.8 Hired male 16.3 82.9 12.5 67.8

Sub Total 90.9 428.8 65.3 332.6 Family male 22.1 101.3 10.0 51.4 Hired male 68.0 329.3 54.8 279.2

Seedbed 1. Spading

Family male 7.1 33.4 3.1 16.7 Hired male 6.1 31.1 4.9 25.9

Sub Total 13.2 64.5 8. 42.6 Transplanting

1. Pulling seedlings Family male 5.0 23.7 2.0 10.0 Hired male 7.9 41.6 4.5 24.3

2. Planting seedlings Family male 2.6 5.8 0 0 Hired male 53.2 128.8 42.8 109.9

Sub Total 68.7 199.9 49.3 144.2 Family male 7.6 29.9 2. 10. Hired male 61.1 170.4 47.3 134.2

Appendix - 26




I t e m


Fertilizing 1. First application

Family male 4.8 23.2 2.5 13.7 Hired male .6 3.8 .8 4.7

2. Second application Family male 4.2 20.0 2.2 11.1 Hired male .6 3.8 .8 4.7

3. Third application Family male 4.0 18.4 2.2 11.0 Hired male .6 3.8 .8 4.7

Sub Total Family male 13.0 61.6 6.9 35.2 Hired male 1.8 11.4 2.4 14.1

Weeding 1. First weeding

Family male 5.5 27.1 .6 3.2 Hired male 0 0 0 0 Family female 5.0 10.8 1.6 5.0 Hired female 54.2 133.3 47.4 121.

2. Second weeding Family male 3.2 15.0 .7 3.7 Hired male 0 0 0 0 Family female 3.2 7.1 1.6 4.4 Hired female 44.7 100.8 44.4 113.9

3. Third weeding Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male 0 0 0 0 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female 7.4 22.1 10.4 31.1

Sub Total Family male 8.7 42.1 1.3 6.9 Hired male 0 0 0 0 Family female 8.2 17.9 3.2 9.4 Hired female 106.3 256.2 102.2 266.0

Harvesting Family male .5 1.3 1.0 2.1 Hired male 25.0 56.7 12.8 28.6 Family female .5 1.3 1.9 3.9 Hired female 46.6 107.0 21.4 51.9

Sub Total 72.6 166.3 37.1 86.5

Appendix - 27




I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 5. Drying and storage

Family male 10.8 53.7 3.6 19.1 Hired male 3.4 18.4 2.4 14.5 Family female 10.8 26.3 4.0 9.5 Hired female 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 25. 98.4 10. 43.1 Total labor use

Family male 67.2 317.1 27.9 141.4 Hired male 112.2 488.5 81.8 386.6 Family female 22.1 51.3 9.1 22.8 Hired female 206.1 492.0 166.4 428.8

Total 407.6 1348.9 285.2 978.6 Percentage labor use

Family male (%) 16. 24. 10. 14. Hired male (%) 28. 36. 29. 40. Family female (%) 5. 4. 3. 2. Hired female (%) 51. 36. 58. 44.

Yields (gabah ton/ha) Average 5.00 5.27

Source: The interview was carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of the dry

season 1969. The author has made the above compilation from the original questionnaires.

\A Eighteen of the respondents planted National improved varieties and two planted local varieties.

Their combined size of rice field operation for these varieties was .19 ha and a range of .06 ha to .86 ha.

\B The twenty four respondents who planted IR varieties had an average size of. 45 ha and a

range of .05 ha to 3.7 ha.

Appendix - 28

Table 15. Average labor use (hours/ha) for rice production in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in Wet Season 1968/1969.


High Yielding Rice Varieties I t e m s


No. of respondents (26) (24) (16) (16) Size of operation:

Average (ha) (1.0) (1.0) (1.37) (1.37) Range (ha) (.25-3.85) (.25-3.85) (.18-3.5) (.18-3.5)

Seedbed:

Family male 9.9 47. 6. 26.0 Hired male 2.7 13.5 6.3 27.0

Sub Total 12.6 60.5 12.3 53 Field preparation:

Family male 16.2 73.0 9.4 39. Hired male 50.1 218.0 49. 205.1

Sub Total 66.3 291.0 58.4 244.1 Transplanting:

1. Pulling seedlings Family male 1.9 8.5 .8 3.1 Hired male 9.5 44.4 9. 41.2

Sub Total 11.4 52.9 9.8 44.3 2.

Family male .7 2.7 .3 1.3 Hired male 5.5 26 8.3 37.9 Hired female .1 .4 0. 0.

Sub Total 6.3 29.1 8.6 39.2 3. Planting the seedlings

Hired male 1.2 5.8 12.3 49.3 Hired female 45.2 196.4 49. 190.

Sub Total 46.4 202.2 61.3 239.3 Fertilizing:

Family male 3.3 15.6 3.8 16.7 Hired male .6 3.1 1.1 4.6 Hired female

Sub Total 3.9 18.7 4.9 20.7 Spraying

Family male 0 0 .1 .4 Weeding

Family male 8.8 38.3 4.6 18.2 Hired male 21. 100.3 73.1 281.2 Family female 3.5 13.4 0 0 Hired female 48. 194 26. 83.5

Sub Total 81.3 346. 103.7 382.9

Appendix - 29


High Yielding Rice Varieties I t e m s


Harvesting \A

Transporting: Family male 0.1 0.4 0 0

Drying and storage Family male 4. 18. 3.5 15. Hired male 3.1 15.4 5.7 23.

Sub Total 7.1 33.4 9.2 38. Total \B

Family male 44.9 203.5 28.5 119.1 Hired male 3.5 13.4 0 0 Family female 93.7 426.5 164.8 669.3 Hired female 93.3 390.8 75. 279.5

Total 235.4 1034.2 268.3 1061.9 Source: Based on information the questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey's interviewing

of the respondents at the end of the dry season 1968/1969. \A The harvest data for the village was not available \B Does not include harvest labor.


Appendix - 30

Table 16. Average labor use per ha by varieties for producing rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.

Local and National Improved Varieties\A (14 respondents

with an average size of .22 ha)

IR Varieties\B (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Soil preparation

1. Plowing with carabou I\C Family male 6.5 24.7 6.9 26 Hired male 8.1 24.7 5.9 17.8

2. Harrowing with carabou I\D Family male 2.9 8.8 9 8.9 Hired male 6.8 22.4 5.9 19.7

3. Plowing with carabou II Family male 0 0 1.3 4.0 Hired male 0 0 0

4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male 3.2 9.7 3 8.9 Hired male 6.8 22.4 3 10.9

5. Spading\E Family male 28.2 126.3 12.2 48.7 Hired male 15.9 74.7 13.8 65.8

6. Improving dikes\F Family male 11 63.6 4.3 18.8 Hired male 3.6 15.9 3.3 15.8

Sub Total 93 329.9 62.6 245.3 Seedbed

1. Plowing with carabou Family male 1. 2.9 1 3.1 Hired male 1 2.9 0.7 2.1

2. Harrowing with carabou Family male 0.1 3.6 0.10 3.9 Hired male 1.3 3.9 0 0

3. Spading Family male 9.7 41.6 3.9 15.8 Hired male 3.2 13.6 3 14.8

Sub Total 16.3 68.5 8.7 39.7 Transplanting

1. Pulling seedlings Family male 7.1 29.2 6.6 26.3 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired male 6.8 31.8 4.9 22.4 Hired female 3.2 16.2 6.6 32.9

2. Planting seedlings Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male 51.3 226 39.8 167.4

Sub Total 68.4 303.2 57.9 249.0 Applying fertilizer

1. First application Family male 5.5 24.7 3.3 14.5 Hired male 0 0 0 0

2. Second application Family male 3.6 16.2 2 8.6 Hired male 0 0 0 0

Appendix - 31

Local and National Improved Varieties\A (14 respondents


IR Varieties\B (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 3. Third application

Family male 2.3 10.7 1.3 5.9 Hired male 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 11.4 51.6 6.6 29. Spraying insecticides

Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male 0.3 1.3 0 0

Sub Total 0.3 1.3 0 0 Weeding

1. First weeding Family male 12.1 50.3 7.9 32.2 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired male 18.2 60.7 7.6 30.3 Hired female 7.5 34.7 6.3 29.9

2. Second weeding Family male 12.3 51.9 1.3 25.9 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired male 16.9 77.6 7.2 28.9 Hired female 5.5 26.3 8.9 36.5

3. Third weeding Family male 0 0 0.7 3.3 Family female 1.3 5.2 0 0 Hired male 4.5 21.4 2.3 9.2 Hired female 56.5 296.4 35.9 169.7

Sub Total 135.1 597.5 78.1 365.9 Harvesting\G

Family female 0.6 3 0 0 Hired female 148.7 643.6 153 667.8

Sub Total 148.3 649.6 153 667.8 Drying and storing

Family male 8.8 41.9 6.3 28.6 Family female 1.9 7.1 1.3 4.5

Sub Total 10.7 49. 7.6 3.1 Total labor use

Family male 82.6 506.1 60.7 263.4 Family female 2.1 15.5 0.7 4.5 Hired male 69.8 373. 63.6 237.7 Hired female 257.8 1216.2 267.6 1114.2


Family male (%) 20. 24. 16. 16. Hired male (%) 1. 1. 0. 0 Family female (%) 16. 17. 16. 15. Hired female (%) 63. 58. 68. 69.

Total (%) 100. 100. 100. 100. Source: The interview was carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of the dry

season 1969. The author has made the above compilation from the original questionnaires.

\A The nuber of respondents who planted local and national improved varieties 14 and their

average size of operation was 22 ha.

Appendix - 32

\B The nuber of respondents who planted IR varieties (probably IR 5 and IR 8) was 8 and their average size of operation was .38 ha. In this village eight of the respondents did not plant rice in this dry season and, the total number of questionnaire were 22. Several of the respondents planted two varieties

\C This is bajak \D This is garu \E This is cangkul \F This is perbaikan galengan \G The harvesting data from some of the respondents was not complete. Those that had

satisfactory information and all used ani-ani were:

IR Varieties

Farmer No. Area of operation

(ha) Wowan days Hours per day

No. 8 .50 100 4 No. 7 .88 150 5 No. 23 .125 25 4 No. 14 .275 30 4 Average .45 76.25 4.25

National Improved Varieties

Farmer No. Area of operation

(ha) Wowan days Hours per day

No. 14 .275 30 4 No. 23 .125 20 4 No. 8 .50 100 4 No. 17 .55 100 5 No. 18 .15 20 4 No. 19 .35 50 5 Average .325 53.3 4.3

These averages have been used for the average labor use in harvesting for IR and national

improved. Since the respondents who planted local varieties did not give satisfactory information on their harvesting operation, we have used the national improved estimate. Yet, these estimates have been adjusted. We calculated the days per ha for IR which was 169.4 and for the national improved which was 164.0. Then, in this table we readjust it for the size of farm operation for each variety. Therefore , in the table the estimate per farm for the local varieties was 82 women days for their operation of .50 ha, for the national improved varieties was 45.9 women day for their .28 ha operation, and for the IR varieties was 71.1 women days for their .42 average operation.

\H These labor estimates do not include supervisory or management labor by the family members.

Appendix - 33

Table 17. Average labor use per farm by varieties for producing rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.

Local and National Improved

Varieties (14 respondents with an average size of .22 ha)

IR Varieties (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Soil preparation

1. Plowing with carabou I Family male 1.4 5.4 2.6 9.9 Hired male 1.8 5.4 2.3 6.8

2. Harrowing with carabou I Family male 0.6 1.9 1.1 3.4 Hired male 1.5 4.9 2.3 7.5

3. Plowing with carabou II Family male 0 0 0.5 1.5 Hired male 0 0 0 0

4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male 0.7 2.1 1.1 3.4 Hired male 1.5 4.9 1.1 4.1

5. Spading Family male 6.2 27.8 4.6 18.5 Hired male 3.5 16.4 5.3 25.

6. Improving dikes Family male 2.4 11.4 1.6 7.1 Hired male 0.8 3.5 1.3 6

Sub Total 20.4 83.7 23.8 93.2 Seedbed

1. Plowing with carabou Family male 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.1 Hired male 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.8

2. Harrowing with carabou Family male 0.2 0.8 0.4 1.5 Hired male 0.3 0.9 0 0

3. Spading Family male 2.1 9.1 1.5 6 Hired male 0.7 3 1.1 5.6

4. Pulling seedlings Family male 1.6 6.4 2.5 10. Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired male 1.5 7 1.9 8.5 Hired female 0.7 3.6 2.5 12.5

Sub Total 7.5 32. 10.6 46. Planting

1. Pulling seedlings Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male 11.3 49.7 15.1 63.6

Sub Total 11.3 49.7 15.1 63.6

Appendix - 34

Local and National Improved Varieties (14 respondents


IR Varieties (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) I t e m


Applying fertilizer 1. First application

Family male 1.2 5.4 1.2 5.5 Hired male 0 0 0 0

2. Second application Family male 0.8 3.6 0.8 3.3 Hired male 0 0 0 0

3. Third application Family male 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.3 Hired male 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 2.5 11.4 2.5 11.1 Spraying insecticides

Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male 0.07 0.3 0 0

Sub Total 0.07 0.3 0 0 Weeding

1. First weeding Family male 2.6 11.1 3 12.3 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired male 2.9 13.4 2.8 11 Hired female 1.6 7.6 2.4 11.4

2. Second weeding Family male 2.7 11.4 0.5 2.3 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired male 3.7 17.1 2.8 11 Hired female 1.2 5.8 3.4 13.9

3. Third weeding Family male 0 0 0.3 1.3 Family female 0.3 1.1 0 0 Hired male 1 4.7 0.9 3.5 Hired female 12.5 59.3 13.6 64.5

Sub Total 28.5 131.5 29.7 131.2 Harvesting

Family female 0 0 0. 0 Hired female 53.3 229.2 76.3 324.3

Sub Total 53.3 229.2 76.3 324.3 Drying and storing

Family male 1.9 9.2 2.4 11. Family female 0.4 1.6 0.3 1.

Sub Total 2.3 10.8 2.7 12. Total labor use

Family male 25.1 108.6 25. 100.4 Family female 0.7 2.7 0.3 1. Hired male 19.47 82.1 22.1 89.8 Hired female 80.6 355.2 113.3 490.2

125.87 548.6 160.7 681.4 Source: Same as Table 16

Appendix - 35

Table 18. Average labor use in days and in hours per ha by varieties for producing rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.

Local and National Improved

Varieties (29 respondents with an average size of .45 ha) \A

IR Varieties (11 respondents with an average size of .19ha)\B I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Field preparation

1. Plowing with carabou I Family male 3.3 9.9 3.3 10.0 Hired male 9.7 29.2 12.4 37.3

2. Harrowing with carabou I Family male 2.3 6.9 3.3 10.0 Hired male 5.5 16.6 7.7 23.0

3. Plowing with carabou II Family male .1 .2 0. 0. Hired male .5 1.5 .7 2.2

4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male .7 2.1 1.0 2.9 Hired male 2.5 8.0 1.0 2.9

5. Spading Family male 4.4 17.9 0. 0. Hired male 26.3 113.0 44.5 190.9

6. Improving dikes Family male 2.3 11.6 0 0. Hired male 5.2 24.1 10.5 48.3

Sub Total 63.3 241. 327.5 327.5 Family male 13.6 48.6 22.9 22.9 Hired male 49.7 192.4 304.6 304.6

Seedbed 1. Plowing with carabou

Family male .5 1.4 1.0 2.9 Hired male .8 2.5 0. 0.

2. Harrowing with carabou Family male .5 1.4 0. 0. Hired male .7 2.2 1.4 4.3

3. Spading Family male 4.1 18.0 5.7 26.8 Hired male 4.2 18.1 3.8 16.7

Sub Total 10.8 43.6 11.9 50.7 Family male 5.1 20.8 6.7 29.7 Hired male 5.7 22.8 5.2 21.0

Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings

Family male 5.2 21.4 1.4 6.2 Hired male 9.9 45.1 12.0 55.5

2. Planting seedlings Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male .5 2.7 3.8 19.1 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female 43.7 172.9 45.9 195.2

Sub Total 59.3 242.1 63.1 276. Family male 5.2 51.4 1.4 6.2 Hired male 0 0 0 0 Family female 10.4 47.8 15.8 74.6 Hired female 43.7 172.9 45.9 195.2

Appendix - 36


with an average size of .45 ha) \A


Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Fertilizing

1. First application Family male 1.5 6.7 3.8 17.2 Hired male .1 .3 .5 1.9

2. Second application Family male 1.1 4.8 3.8 17.2 Hired male .1 .3 .5 1.9

3. Third application Family male .5 2.4 1.9 9.1 Hired male 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 3.3 14.5 10.5 47.3 Family male 3.1 13.9 9.5 43.5 Hired male .2 .6 1.0 3.8

Spraying insecticides 1. First application

Family male .3 Hired male 0

Sub Total 0.3 Weeding

1. First weeding Family male 2.7 11.0 2.4 11.0 Hired male 18.7 78.5 38.3 157.3 Family female 0

0 0 0

Hired female 7.6 36.8 5.7 28.7 2. Second weeding

Family male 2.4 9.7 2.9 12.9 Hired male 10.3 41.8 20.1 82.8 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female 7.3 30.7 19.6 83.7

3. Third weeding Family male 0 0 0 0 Hired male 4.1 16.6 20.1 82.3 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female 10.7 39.1 30.1 112.4

Sub Total 63.8 264.2 139.2 573.1 Family male 5.1 20.7 5.3 23.9 Hired male 33.1 136.9 78.5 324.4 Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female 25.6 106.6 55.4 224.8

Harvesting Family female 0 0 0 0 Hired female\C 91 475 91 475

Sub Total 91 475 91 475 Drying and storing

Family male 2.9 13.5 6.2 29.2 Hired male 0 0 0 0 Family female 2.1 6.6 3.8 14.4 Hired female .2 .6 1.0 3.8

Sub Total 5.2 20.7 11.0 47.4

Appendix - 37


with an average size of .45 ha) \A



Total labor use Family male 35.3 140.4 37.2 157.8 Hired male 99.1 400.5 177.3 728.4 Family female 2.1 6.6 3.8 14.4 Hired female 160.5 754.5 192.3 898.8

Total 297. 1302.6 410.6 1799.4 Percentage labor use

Family male (%) 11. 10. 9. 9. Hired male (%) 32. 31. 43. 27.40 Family female (%) 1. 1. 1. 1 Hired female (%) 56. 58. 47. 66.50

Yield (wet paddy ton.ha) Average 1.65 4.57 Range 1.46 6.96 3.28 8.32

Source: Field survey carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of the dry season

harvest in 1969 \A Of the 29 respondents, only 8 cultivated national improved varieties and the others cultivated

local varieties. The range in size of rice operation was .03 ha to 1.6 ha. \B The eleven respondents had an average size of IR rice field operation of 19. ha and a range of

0.8 ha .48 ha. \C Only 20 of the respondents had satisfactory information on harvest labor and since the few who

planted HYV's were not reliable on harvest hours, we have used the same average for both Lokal/National improved and HYV's.

After the calculations were made and included in the text, the missing questionnaires were found. There for, table 18 should replace tables 16 and 17 which are incomplete.


Appendix - 38

Table 19. Labor use in rice production in Geneng village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1970/1971 and Dry Season 1971.


(30 respondents with average size of 1 ha)

Wet Season 1970 Dry Season 1971 I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 1. Field preparation and seedbed

Wet season 1970/71 Family male 8.5 42.3 7. 33. Hired male 81.5 406. 79.2 396.2

2. Soil preparation between season Dry season 1971

Family male 0 0 8.4 42. Hired male 0 0 41. 203.

3. Transplanting and weeding Wet season 1970/71

Family male 4.4 22.2 4.5 23. Hired male 9. 43. 10.7 53.5 Family female 2. 8. 7.3 36.3 Hired female 67. 333.2 61.1 305.5

4. Harvesting and Post Harvest Activities.

Wet Season 1970/71 Family male 8. 40. 11. 53.2 Hired male 11.2 56.2 16.3 82. Family female 9. 45. 7. 34. Hired female 66.3 331.3 42.2 211.

Total labor use Family male 20.9 104.5 30.9 151.2 Hired male 101.7 505.2 147.2 734.7 Family female 11. 53. 14.3 70.3 Hired female 113.3 664.5 103.3 516.5

Total 266.9 1327.2 295.7 1472.7 Percentage labor use (%) (%) (%) (%)

Family male 8. 8. 10. 10. Hired male 38. 38. 50. 50. Family female 4. 4. 5. 5. Hired female 50. 50. 35 35.

100. 100. 100. 100. Source: The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro

Economic Survey which filled in at the end of the Wet Season Harvest in this village.


Appendix - 39

Table 20. Labor use in production in Sidomulyo village (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1969/1970.

Local Varieties (18 respondents with average size of .4 ha)

High yielding varieties (24 respondents

with average size of .5 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Seedbed

1. Plowing Family male 0 0 0.04 0.2

2. Harrowing Family male 0 0 0.04 0.2

3. Spading Family male 3.2 15.5 2.8 12.4 Hired male 2.5 12.1 4. 17.

4. Pulling seedlings Family male 2.5 14.4 1.7 10. Hired male 7.1 42. 7.1 42.

Field preparation 1. Plowing (first)

Family male 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.3 Hired male 3.1 12.4 3. 12.1

2. Harrowing (first) Family male 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.25 Hired male 3.5 13. 3.1 12.

3. Plowing (second) Family male 0 0 0.25 1. Hired male 2.7 10.4 2.35 9.4

4. Harrowing (second) Family male 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 Hired male 3.5 0.8 0.6 2.

5. Spading Family male 5.3 24.4 5. 21. Hired male 12.1 59. 13.4 63.

6. Preparing bunds Family male 6. 28.1 5.4 23.4 Hired male 12. 56. 13.1 61.

Planting the seedlings Hired female 36. 105.1 36.25 105.4

Fertilizing 1. First application

Family male 4.3 5.4 4. 5. Hired male 1. 2. 0.75 2.25

2. Second application Family male 48. 5.4 4.1 5. Hired male 1. 2. 0.5 2.5

3. Third application Family male 4.5 5.2 4. 6. Hired male 1. 2. 0.5 2.25

Appendix - 40




Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Spraying

1. First application Hired male 0.3 0.3 0 0 Hired female 0 0 0.25 2

2. Second application Hired female 0 0 0.25 1.25

Weeding First weeding

Family male 2.5 3. 3. 3.25 Family female 0 0 0.2 0.3 Hired female 7 110 5.25 93.4

Second weeding Family male 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.1 Family female 0 0 0.2 0.3 Hired female 6.8 68 5. 66.

Harvesting Family male 0 0 0.25 0.25 Hired male 6 45 4.3 46.75 Family female 0 0 0.25 0.25 Hired female 8. 133.75 6.3 139.75

Drying and storing Family male 11. 55. 9.1 48. Hired male 0 0. 0.75 5.4 Family female 5.4 22. 5.1 19.

Total labor use Family male 88. 158.6 41.78 128.25 Hired male 52.6 257. 53.45 277.65 Family female 5.4 22. 5.75 19.85 Hired female 57.8 416.85 53.3 407.8


Family male (%) 43. 10. 43. 15. Hired male (%) 26. 30. 26. 34. Family female (%) 3. 3. 3. 2. Hired female (%) 28. 48. 28. 49.


Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the end of the wet Season harvest in this village.


Appendix - 41

Table 21. Labor use (no harvest labor) in rice production in Bulus Pesantren village (Kebumen Kabupaten, Central Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.




Work days Work hours Work days Work hours Seedbed

Family male 7. 39.5 40. 239. Hired male 8.25 49.5 1.1 9.1

Field preparation Family male 18. 101.25 68.2 409.1 Hired male 56.25 328.5 25. 150.

Transplanting Pulling seedlings

Family male 2.2 13.25 16. 95.5 Hired male 6. 34.5 7. 41.

Preparation (mencaplak) Family male 1.4 8.5 16. 95.5 Hired male 7. 42. 5. 27.3 Family female 0 0 1.1 3.4 Hired female 0 0 5. 14.

Planting the seedlings Family male 1. 3.75 6. 34.1 Hired male 0 0 3.4 20.5 Family female 1. 2.5 10.2 31. Hired female 51.3 154. 26.1 78.4

Fertilizing Family male 4.7 28.25 31.25 187.5 Hired male 6.1 36.5 0 0

Spraying Insecticide Family male 0.2 1.25 0 0

Weeding Family male 12.75 76.5 49. 293.2 Hired female 58.25 349.5 65 389.

Harvesting \A n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Threshing

Family male 0 0 1.1 7. Hired male 0 0 1.1 7.

Transporting to house Family male 1.3 8. 9.1 55. Hired male 5. 28. 7. 41. Family female 0.1 0.25 0 0

Drying and storing Family male 4.2 25. 27.3 16.4 Hired male 1.25 7.5 0 0 Family female 5. 15. 56.4 109.1 Hired female 0.25 0.75 0 0

Appendix - 42





Family male 191.35 993.75 263.95 1579.9 Hired male 148.6 876. 114.6 684.9 Family female 6.1 17.75 139.8 143.5 Hired female 51.55 154.75 31.1 92.4

Total 397.6 2042.25 549.45 2500.7 Percentage labor use (%) (%) (%) (%)

Family male 48. 48. 48. 63. Hired male 37. 43. 21. 27. Family female 2. 1. 25. 2. Hired female 13. 8. 6. 4.



\A The information on harvest labor was not satisfactory and therefore not include in this table.


Appendix - 43

Table 22. Average labor use in hours/ha for cultivating rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1977/1978.

I t e m s Gemarang

Number of respondent. 49 Size of Operation

Average (ha) .82 Range (ha) .069 - 4.75

Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Cutting rice stalks (babat jerami)


2. Plowing, harrowing and spading Family male 73.4 Hired male 161.2

Transplanting (hours/ha) Family male 7.8 Family female 5.4 Hired male 34.1 Hired female 167.7

Weeding and others (hours/ha) Family male 62.0 Family female 17.0 Hired male 36.5 Hired female 144.5

Harvesting (hours/ha) Family male 5.4 Family female 3.6 Hired male 215.9 Hired female 58.7

Total labor use Family male 164.7 Family female 26.0 Hired male 483.6 Hired female 371.1

Total 1045.4 Percentage labor use (%)

Family male 16. Family female 3. Hired male 46. Hired female 35.

Source: Calculation by the author based on information from Mr. Soentoro who conducted the

field survey for his M.S. thesis in the villages after the harvest in 1978.

Appendix - 44

Table 22a. Labor use in rice production in Serang village (Pemalang Kabupaten, Central Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.

Local varieties (19 respondents with

average size of .5 ha) I t e m s Work days Work hours

1. Seedbed

Family male 4. 24.2 Hired male 9. 61.5 Family female 0.1 0.5

2. Field preparation Family male 5. 33.1 Hired male 56. 336.

3. Transplanting a. Pulling seedlings

Family male 1.1 7.4 Hired male 6. 41.3 Family female 2.4 16.3 Hired female 10. 67.1

b. Other operation (mencaplak) Family male 1. 6. Hired male 6. 4.4 Family female 2.4 16.3 Hired female 10. 86.5

c. Planting the seedlings Family male 1. 0.7 Family female 1. 21. Hired female 2.4 241.2

4. Fertilizing Family male 3. 17.3 Hired male 3.5 24.3

5. Spraying Family male 1. 6. Hired male 3.4 24.

6. Weeding Family male 4. 24.2 Hired male 26. 179. Family female 3.4 23. Hired female 61.2 424.

6. Drying and Storing Family male 3.5 24. Hired male 8. 56. Family female 3. 20. Hired female 1. 7.

Total labor use Family male 22.7 142.9 Family female 112.9 726.5 Hired male 14.4 97.1 Hired female 120.2 825.8

Total 270.2 1792.3

Appendix - 45

Local varieties (19 respondents with average size of .5 ha) I t e m s

Work days Work hours Percentage labor use (%)

Family male 8. 8 Family female 42. 41. Hired male 5. 5. Hired female 45. 46.

Total 100. 100. Source: The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro



Appendix - 46

Table 23. Labor use (hours/ha) in rice production in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1977/1978.

I t e m s Gemarang

Number of respondent. 49 Size of Operation

Average (ha) 0.82 Range (ha) No. of respondents 49

Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Cutting stalks

Family male Average (ha) 18.8 Range (ha) 1.3 - 424 No. of respondents 42

Hired male Average (ha) 29.1 Range (ha) 2.1 - 16.4 No. of respondents 15

2. Plowing, harrowing and spading Family male

Average (ha) 114.6 Range (ha) 2 - 400 No. of respondents 42

Hired male Average (ha) 195.3 Range (ha) 4.7 - 140 No. of respondents 45

Transplanting Weeding

Family male Average (ha) 17.3 Range (ha) 3 - 148 No. of respondents 22

Family female Average (ha) 12.7 Range (ha) 2.7 - 24 No. of respondents 21


Hired female Average (ha) 171.2 Range (ha) 12 - 422.2 No. of respondents 48

Appendix - 47

I t e m s Gemarang Weeding

Family male Average (ha) 67.6 Range (ha) 8 - 800 No. of respondents 45

Family female Average (ha) 67.6 Range (ha) 5.2 - 583.3 No. of respondents 23


Hired female Average (ha) 221.6 Range (ha) 36.4 - 377 No. of respondents 32

Harvesting Family male

Average (ha) 22 Range (ha) 5.3 - 88.9 No. of respondents 12

Family female Average (ha) 17.6 Range (ha) 4.2 - 133.3 No. of respondents 10


Hired female Average (ha) 191.6 Range (ha) 21.3 - 1090 No. of respondents 15

Total labor use Family male 240.3 Family female 290.9 Hired male 411 Hired female 584.4

Total 1526.6 Percentage labor use (%)

Family male 16. Family female 19. Hired male 27. Hired female 38.

Total 100.

Appendix - 48

Table 24. Average labor use (hours/ha) for high yielding rice varieties in Sumokembangsri village (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the 1977/78 Wet Season and the 1978 Dry Season.

I t e m s Wet Season 1977/78

Dry Season 1978

Number of respondent. 62 41 Ave. size of operation (ha) .52 .23 1. Seedbed (hours/ha)

Family male 44.7 39.7 Family female 0 0 Hired male 92.0 129.0 Hired female 0 0

Sub Total 136.7 168.7 2. Field preparation (hours/ha)

Family male 93.4 57.6 Family female 0 0 Hired male 278.6 268.0 Hired female 0 0

Sub Total 372.0 325.6 3. Transplanting (hours/ha)

Family male 35.1 16.7 Family female 10.2 9.6 Hired male 99.3 85.0 Hired female 214.7 204.9

Sub Total 359.3 316.2 4. Weeding and others cultivation (hours/ha)


Sub Total 316.8 338.9 5. Harvesting (hours/ha)


Sub Total 509.7 519.1 Total labor use

Family male 246.0 171.7 Family female 44.7 37.5 Hired male 739. 770.6 Hired female 664.8 688.7

Total 1694.5 1668.5 Percentage labor use (%)

Family male 14. 11. Family female 3. 2. Hired male 44. 46. Hired female 39. 41.

Total 100. 100. Source: Calculation and interviewing by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural

University. The author is his major advisor.


Appendix - 49

Table 25. Average labor use (hours/ha) for various in rice production in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1977/1978.

I t e m s Owner Operator Share cropper Renters Mixed Tenure

Number of respondent. 19 10 9 11 Size of Operation

Average (ha) 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.8 Range (ha) .18 - 4.78 0.25 - 2.20 0.07 - 0.63 18 - 3

Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Cutting stalks

Family male Average (ha) 8.5 15 67.4 19.1 Range (ha) 0 - 30 0 - 22 5 - 424 3.6 - 36.4

Hired male Average (ha) 13.8 1.5 18.1 1.1 Range (ha) 0 - 42 0 - 48 0 - 164 0 - 56

2. Plowing, harrowing and spading

Family male Average (ha) 42 129.3 111. 35.1 Range (ha) 0 - 273 0 - 156 0 - 400 0 - 237

Hired male Average (ha) 153 224 86 143.3 Range (ha) 0 - 126 0 - 553 0 - 51.2 0 - 120

Transplanting Family male

Average (ha) 3.2 2.5 17. 20.5 Range (ha) 0 - 96 0 - 38 0 - 148 0 - 32

Family female Average (ha) 1.8 4. 9.6 14. Range (ha) 0 - 27 0 - 38 0 - 36 0 - 24

Hired male Average (ha) 27. 45. 13.3 48. Range (ha) 0 - 50.3 0 -135 0 - 58.2 0 - 56

Hired female Average (ha) 203 116. 120. 142.4 Range (ha) 12 - 545 114.3 - 141.8 40 - 192 80 - 113.3

Weeding Family male

Average (ha) 49 47.3 119 87.5 Range (ha) 0 - 66.2 8 - 115.2 48 - 296 23 - 800

Family female Average (ha) 10.4 3 60 32 Range (ha) 0 - 125 0 - 56.5 0 - 342 0 - 583.3

Hired male Average (ha) 45 96.3 56.3 79.1 Range (ha) 0 - 116 0 - 560 0 - 76.8 0 - 55

Hired female Average (ha) 160 135 84.4 134

Appendix - 50

I t e m s Owner Operator Share cropper Renters Mixed Tenure

Range (ha) 0 - 377 0 - 149.1 0 - 192 0 - 160

Harvesting Family male

Average (ha) 2.8 6.3 12. 9 Range (ha) 0 - 10.5 0 - 24 0 - 203 0 - 89

Family female Average (ha) 3 2 2.2 7.3 Range (ha) 0 - 117 0 - 32 0 - 22 0 - 444

Hired male Average (ha) 169.1 243.3 341.5 258.3 Range (ha) 0 - 524 0 - 256.4 0 - 660 0 - 600

Hired female Average (ha) 51.2 40 16.4 96.4 Range (ha) 0 - 73.3 0 - 640 0 - 262 0 - 1091

Total labor use Family male 106. 200.4 326.4 221.2 Family female 182. 235. 176. 198. Hired male 241. 385. 411. 385.4 Hired female 414.2 291. 221. 373.

Total 943.2 1111.4 1134.4 1178. Percentage labor use (%) (%) (%) (%)

Family male 11. 18 29. 19. Family female 19. 21. 16. 17. Hired male 26. 35. 36. 33. Hired female 44. 26. 19. 31.

Total 100. 100. 100. 100. Source: Calculation and interviewing by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural

University. The author is his major advisor.

Appendix - 51

Table 26. Average labor use for rice production in Sumokembangsri village, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java for three plantings in 1978.

Rice corps

I t e m s First planting

Second planting

Third planting

Number of respondents 50 36 23 Average size of operation .50 .33 .10 Labor use (hours/ha)

Family male 241 204 406 Family female 772 760 662 Hired male 55 64 53 Hired female 640 633 551

Total 1708 1661 1672 Percentage labor use

Family male (%) 14 12 24 Family female (%) 45 46 40 Hired male (%) 3 4 3 Hired female (%) 38 38 33

100. 100. 100. Source: Field interview survey by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural

University.


Appendix - 52

Table 27. Average of rice production for three crops (seasons) in Sumokembangsri village, Sidoarjo, East Java in 1977 and 1978.

I t e m Crop Season I Wet Season 1977/1978

Crop Season II Dry Season

1978

Crop Season III Dry Season

1978 1. Number of respondents 50 36 23 2. Area of rice cultivated 24,954 11,864 2,219 3. Average size of rice operation (ha) 0.499 0.330 0.10 4. Family labor use:

Male 226 195 395 Female 55 64 53 Carabou 15 9 11

5. Hired labor use: Male 745 727 628 Female 640 633 551 Carabou 27 33 34

Total 1708 1661 1672 6. Wages paid to hired laborers (not harvest) 54,199 53,656 7. Cost of other production inputs (Rp./ha) 38,841 37 8. Gross yield (ton/ha) 5.99 9. Harvest paid in kind (ton/ha) 1.23 10. Net yield (ton/ha) 4.76 11. Value of net yields (Rp./ha) 291,624 12. Cost of renting, sharecropping and

irrigation (Rp./ha) 31,923

13. Net return per ha (Rp./ha) 166,661 Source: Field interview survey by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural

University.


Appendix - 53

Table 28a. Quantity and Value of the Principal Articles Exported from the Netherlands - Indie to Foreign Countries on Private Account in each of the Undermentioned years.

Rice

Cleaned Uncleaned

1875: Quantity (kg) 7,967,523 220,474

Value (f) 957,309 11,024

f/kg .120 .050

1880: Quantity (kg) 9,436,901 7,229,155

Value (f) 1,132,428 361,458

f/kg .12 .050

1884: Quantity (kg) 11,390,447 6,555,770

Value (f) 1,139,045 327,788

f/kg .10 .050

1893 Quantity (kg) 29,819,667 2,211,844

Value (f) 2,981,967 110,592

f/kg .10 .050

Source: Price of rice and wages (The Financial of Economical Condition of the Netherlands

Indies since 1870 and the Effect of the Present Currency Systems) by N.P. van den Berg, Late President of the Java Bank and President of the Netherlands Bank, Third Edition, The Hague, Printed for the members of the Netherlands Economical and Statistical society 1895, 46 p., supplement II (Memorandum of the Present State of the Currency Question in Holland and Java; Batavia, 1879, by N.P. van den Berg, Batavia, 24th June 1879, Supplement II (Note on the present working condition of the Gold standard in Java by Mr. A. Kensington, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Financial Department, 21st September 1892), Appendix A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L.

Appendix - 54

Table 28b. Wholesale Prices of Export Articles Rice (f per coyan)

January April July October Ave.

1871 160 157.5 155 160

72 165 172.5 215 217

73 230 225 207 210

74 215 210 205 170

.12 75 162.5 172 182.5 172.5

76 172.5 167.5 177.5 158

77 225 205 185 210

78 215 200 225 230

79 220 180 197.5 205

.12 80 215 205 200 195

81 195 187.5 197.5 195

82 190 185 187.5 180

83 160 150 170 165

.10 84 167.5 157.5 132. 132.5

85 132.5 137.5 122.5 135

86 120 127.5 115 112.5

87 117.5 112.5 105 105

88 115 117.5 102.5 115

89 137.5 120 130 n.a.

90 152.5 n.a. 170 150

91 162.5 157.5 160 162.5

92 185 180 185 142.5

.10 93 162.5 n.a. 143 132.5

94 n.a. n.a. 135 125

95 110 105 115 - Source: Same as Table 28a.

Appendix - 55

Table 28c. Rates of wages of coolies (laborers) and handicraftment (skilled laborers).

(50 = 50 cents per day)\A 1874 1879 1884 1889 1893

Batavia laborers Wage (cents/day) 50 50 50 to 100 20 to 100 20 to 10 Wage in kg rice 10 10 10 to 20 4 to 20 4 to 2

Semarang laborers Wage (cents/day) 40 to 50 40 to 75 25 to 60 50 to 150 15 to 40 Wage in kg rice 8 to 10 8 to 15 5 to 12 10 to 30 3 to 8

Surabaya laborers Wage (cents/day) 30 to 80 35 to 60 35 to 60 40 to 50 35 to 50 Wage in kg rice 6 to 16 7 to 12 7 to 12 8 to 10 7 to 10

Preanger laborers Wage (cents/day) 20 to 25 15 to 30 20 to 25 20 to 30 20 to Wage in kg rice 4 to 5 3 to 6 4 to 5 4 to 6 4 to

Surakarta laborers Wage (cents/day) 30 to 60 30 to 50 30 to 60 30 to 35 25 to Wage in kg rice 6 to 12 6 to 10 6 to 12 6 to 7 5 to

Pasuran laborers Wage (cents/day) 30 to 60 30 to 50 25 to 70 25 to 40 50 to Wage in kg rice 6 to 10 6 to 10 5 to 14 5 to 8 10 to

Soruce: Same as Table 28a. \A This uses the price of uncleaned rice (beras) from Appendix G to convert to kg which was 5

cents per kg.

Appendix - 56

Table 29. Rice yields in Dry paddy (pikul/bahu) in 1921 and an average of the 1916 to 1920 period in Java.

1921

(dry paddy) Average of 1916 to and including 1920 Location

(Residency or Kabupatens) Pikul/bahu Ton/ha Pikul/bahu Ton/ha

Cirebon 21.84 1.95 24.78 2.21 Semarang 17.27 1.54 20.13 1.80 Madiun 16.95 1.51 22.03 1.97 Surabaya 20.10 1.79 25.49 2.28

Surabaya Kabupaten 16.12 1.44 19.35 1.73 Sidoarjo Kabupaten 26.47 2.36 35.07 3.13 Mojokerto 20.86 1.56 29.04 2.59 Jombang 24.06 2.15 33.94 3.03 Gresik 15.26 1.36 20.89 1.86 Lamongan 14.71 1.31 16.16 1.44

Kediri 24.19 2.16 26.67 2.38 Kediri Kabupaten 23.06 2.06 32.37 2.89 Tulungagung 27.19 2.43 30.85 2.75 Brebeg 19.35 1.73 25.51 2.28 Blitar 26.76 2.39 29.38 2.62

Java and Madura 19.10 1.70 24.92 2.22 Source: Rijst: Eenige bijzonderkeden over cultuur Bewerking Verbruik, Invoer, Uitvoer en

Handel, met een marktover zicht over de Jaaren 1911-1922, Uitgave van den Denst der Belastingen, Landsdukkerij, Weltevreden, 1923, Appendix 12.

Appendix -57

Table 30. Rice Production in 1921

Area of cultivated land (bahu) Rice in sawah which was harvested

Location No. of

farmers Area in

(ha)

Area of sawah which had a good yield

(ha)

Area of sawah

which had a poor yield

(ha)

Total area of sawah harvested

(ha) Total dry paddy in

(ton)

Dry paddy yield for

harvested area

(ton/ha)

Dry paddy yield for

area planted (ton/ha)

Bantam Regency 325,499 107,859 23,222 20,973 104,195 169,517 1969 1627 Krawang Kabupaten 324,428 138,451 88,999 437,859 133,458 181,890 1881 1363 Batavia Residency 717,975 346,961 314,693 46,512 361,206 637,666 1982 1765 Cirebon Residency 464,331 221,080 116,215 82,477 198,692 551,843 1953 1204 Preager Residency 1,109,135 286,997 292,560 1,912 294,472 677,056 2313 2299 Pemalang Kabupaten 93,036 32,904 40,114 242 40,356 92,713 2312 2297 Pekalongan Residency 460,223 191,956 174,654 12,037 186,691 377,141 2152 2021 Kendal Kabupaten 94,958 29,667 34,516 715 35,230 65,839 1906 1869 Semarang Residency 820,953 289,155 250,646 36,648 286,288 395,138 1542 1980 Banjoemas Kabupaten 72,868 20,390 24,301 655 24,956 51,632 2123 2069 Banjoemas Residency 479,169 113,823 129,070 15458 427,527 262,030 2021 1948 Keboemen Kabupaten 135,090 45,001 67,327 169 67,496 133,869 1988 1983 Kedoe Residency 598,905 162,777 189,412 1,508 190,920 362,268 1912 1897 Djokjakarta Residency 183,291 62,856 50,225 426 50,651 123,763 2463 2444 Klaten Kabupaten 84,555 33,987 34,707 120 34,827 79,932 2302 2296 Soerakarta Residency 675,473 190,763 161,121 1,260 162,381 299,929 1858 1847 Ngawi Kabupaten 114,186 46,243 40,853 8,317 49,253 68,524 1622 1291

58

Area of cultivated land (bahu) Rice in sawah which was harvested

Location No. of

farmers Area in

(ha)

Area of sawah which had a good yield

(ha)

Area of sawah

which had a poor yield

(ha)

Total area of sawah harvested

(ha) Total dry paddy in

(ton)

Dry paddy yield for

harvested area

(ton/ha)

Dry paddy yield for

area planted (ton/ha)

Madioen Residency 591,088 154,110 129,665 25,206 154,870 201,408 1513 1301 Central Java 4,378,038 1,381,434 1,253,890 124,905 1,378,796 2,255,013 1777 1636 Sidoardjo Kabupaten 65,312 32,076 25,234 2,252 27,486 60,688 2363 2208 Djombang Kabupaten 106,115 49,582 27,087 17,413 44,500 3,906 2148 1488 Soerabaja Residency 535,042 262,016 137,264 110,554 247,818 276,405 1795 1115 Madoera Residency 575,209 77,612 57,956 16,437 74,395 72,489 1194 974 Kediri Residency 543,997 147,774 95,393 32,920 128,313 212,145 2160 1654 Loemadjang Kabupaten 105,458 18,886 16,651 599 17,249 46,510 2792 2704 Pesoeroean Residency 655,183 141,575 119,843 4,686 124,529 292,031 2442 2346 Djember Kabupaten 176,467 50,101 49,955 105 50,060 151,967 3042 3036 Basuki Residency 459,660 120,165 112,025 5,427 117,452 331,202 2954 2820 East Java 2,769,091 749,141 522,480 170,024 692,504 1,184,272 2192 1710 Java and Madura 9,764,069 3,093,471 2,583,062 446,802 3,029,864 5,162,867 1960 1704 Source: Rijst: Eenige bijzonderkeden over cultuur Bewerking Verbruik, Invoer, Uitvoer en Handel, met een marktover zicht over de Jaaren 1911-1922, Uitgave van

den Denst der Belastingen, Landsdukkerij, Weltevreden, 1923

Appendix - 59

Table 31. Labor use (hours/ha) in rice Production in Ngrowo District, East Java in 1875/76. \A

I t e m Labor use when

carabou was used (hours/ha)

Labor use when carabou not used

(hours/ha) 1. Pepairing and deepening the irrigation

canals n.a. n.a.

2. Seedbed Plowing 3. 0. Spading 0. 10. Repairing bunds 2. 2. Spading after plowing 5. 0. Second spading 0. 6. First harrowing 1. 0. Breaking up dirt clods 1. 0. First Bencak 0. 3. Smoothening the talud 1. 1. Second harrowing 1. 0. Second Becak 0. 3. Third harrowing 1. 0. Planting the seeds 17. 6. Building a fence around the seedbed 20. 20. Guarding and water management n.a. n.a.

Sub total 52. 51. 3. Soil Preparation

Plowing 60. 0. Spading (memacul) 0. 237. Repairing bunds 49. 49. Spading after plowing 120. 0. Second spading 143. 0. First harrowing (menggaru) 24. 0. Breaking up dirt clods 47. 0. First Bencak 0. 71. Smoothening the talud 24. 24. Second harrowing 24. 0. Second Bencak 0. 60. Third harrowing 24. 0.

Sub total 515. 411. 4. Transplanting

Pulling the seedlings, tying in bundles and carrying to the field

26. 21.

Planting the seedlings 204. 204. Sub total 230. 225.

Appendix - 60

I t e m Labor use when

carabou was used (hours/ha)

Labor use when carabou not used

(hours/ha) 5. Weeding 204. 204. 6. Guarding the field and building the guard

house 300. 300.

7. Water management n.a. n.a. 8. Harvesting 286. 286. 9. Post Harvest guarding and other operation

including string 200. 200.

10. Transport to owner's house n.a. n.a. Total labor use 1787. 1707.

Soruce: J.N.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Rapport over de Padi- Cultuur in de Afdeeling Ngrowo

(1875/76), Batavia, 1887, pp. 271-274. \A These estimates are for an operation of .7 ha

n.a. = not available


Appendix - 61

Table 32. Labor use in rice production in Banyutowo village (Kendal Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.


average size of .65 ha) I t e m s Work days Work hours

1. Seedbed

Family male 1.4 8.4 Hired male 13. 76.

2. Field preparation Family male 2. 11.1 Hired male 39. 225.

3. Transplanting - Pulling seedlings

Family male 1.3 8. Hired male 14.2 86.

- Other planting operation Family male 1. 4.4 Hired male 11. 65.

- Planting the seedlings Family male 0.1 0.4 Hired male 4. 23. Family female 1.5 7.3 Hired female 31. 165.

4. Fertilizing Family male 2.2 13.3 Hired male 4. 23.3

5. Spraying Family male 6.4 39.

6. Weeding Family male 1.5 9. Hired male 83.3 501.4 Family female 1. 5. Hired female 5.1 31.

7. Weeding Hired female 68.2 355.

8. Drying and Storing Family male 3. 18. Hired male 4. 22. Family female 0.2 1.1

Total labor use Family male 18.9 111.6 Family female 172.5 1021.7 Hired male 2.7 13.4 Hired female 104.3 551.


Family male (%) 6. 7. Family female (%) 68. 60. Hired male (%) 1. 1. Hired female (%) 35. 32.

Total 100. 100. THIS TABLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT WAS FINISHED AFTER THE TEXT WAS TYPED.

Appendix - 62

Table 33. Labor use in rice production for an .7 ha operation in Pekundan village, Ngrowo District (Blitar Kabupaten), East Java in 1875/76.

I t e m Work days/ha\A Work hours/ha\B

1. Seedbed

Plowing with carabou 2.9 12. Harrowing with carabou 2.9 12. Hand labor work 5.7 40. Watering and planting seeds 1.4 10. Building fence around seedbed 2.1 15.

2. Field Preparation Repairing dam and irrigation canals 2.9 20. Plowing with carabou 28.6 114. Repairing bunds 10.0 70. Spading along the field edges 10.0 70. First harrowing with carabou 7.1 28. Second harrowing with carabou 7.1 28. Cleaning the talud 7.1 50. Third harrowing with carabou 7.1 28.

3. Transplanting: Pulling the seedlings and carrying to the

field 7.1 50

Planting the seedlings 35.7 250. 4. Cultivation:

First weeding 28.6 200. Guarding, repairing bunds, and water

management 14.3 100.

5. Harvest and Post harvest: Harvesting 85.7 600. Tying the bundles of paddy, drying, and

water management 17.1 120.

6. Total labor use 283.4 1817. Soruce: J.N.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Rapport over de Padi- Cultuur in de Afdeeling Ngrowo

(1875/76), Appendix B (Question asked of the villagers and carrying out of crop cuttings as reported by the Assistant Resident Kroessen, in Blitar, East java, August 30, 1876), pp. 329-332.

\A In the appendix the writer gave the following additional information:

1. The average from size was 400 to 500 R.R. which converts to 1.14 to 1.43 ha. 2. Their fields suffered a lack of water for almost the entire crop period. 3. Paying a wage to the laborers is not common. They would give them one meal. 4. The cost of renting a pair of carabou for one day was 4 amet(?) of paddy or f30 for one

year. 5. The share (bawon) of the harvest was 1/4 for those who transplanted the seedlings and

were given the opportunity to harvest the field. 6. They sell some of their rice to get cash for the items they must purchase. Therefore, they

do not have enough rice from their own fields for their consumption for a year. If they did not sell some of their rice, then they would have a sufficient amount.

7. They work outside of their own farms to make up the shortages of rice.

Appendix - 63

8. Their normal yields in dry paddy were 2.6 ton/ha to 2.9 per ha. They gave the following conversion factors for 1 gedeng of rice:

wet paddy = 15 dry paddy = 11 paddy without stalk = 101/4 beras = 7

\B The information was given in workdays per bahu which is .7 ha and the author converted it to

hectares. \C In this Appendix, he stated that one work day of hand labor was 7 hours and one work day with

a carabou was 4 hours. The author has used these estimates to convert the workdays to work hours.

Appendix - 64

Table 34. Labor use in rice production in Waranat village (Pemalang Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.


average size of 1.3 ha) I t e m s Work days Work hours

1. Seedbed

Family male 1. 4.4 Hired male 6.2 31. Family female 0.04 0.2 Hired female 0.02 0.1

Sub Total 7.26 35.7 2. Field preparation

Family male 1. 5.1 Hired male 56. 265.2

Sub Total 57. 270.3 3. Transplanting

- Pulling seedlings Family male 0.3 2. Hired male 0.5 2.5 Hired female 14. 67.3

- Mencaplak Family male 0.3 2. Hired male 0.2 1.1 Family female 0.4 2. Hired female 16.5 82.3

- Planting the seedlings Family male 0.3 2. Hired male 0.4 2.1 Hired female 18.2 91.5

Sub Total 51.1 254.8 4. Fertilizing

Family male 0.4 2. Hired male 2.1 10.3

Sub Total 2.5 12.3 5. Spraying


Sub Total 1.6 6. Weeding

Family male 1.5 8. Hired male 26. 131. Family female 0.5 2.3 Hired female 53. 264.

Sub Total 81 405.3 7. Weeding

Family female 0.1 0.3 8. Drying and Storing

Family male 1. 5. Hired male 9.2 46.5 Family female 0.5 2.3 Hired female 1.2 6.2

Sub Total 11.9 60.

Appendix - 65

Local varieties (35 respondents with average size of 1.3 ha) I t e m s

Work days Work hours

Total labor use Family male 6.2 32.5 Family female 100.9 491.2 Hired male 2.44 11.7 Hired female 102.92 511.4


Family male (%) 3. 3. Family female (%) 47.4 47. Hired male (%) 1.2 1. Hired female (%) 48.4 49.

Total 100. 100. Source: The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro

Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the Wet Season harvest in this village.


Appendix - 66

Table 35. Labor use in rice production in Djanti village, (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1969/1970.

Local Varieties

(27 respondents with average size of .5 ha)

High Yielding Varieties

(2 respondents with an average size of .2 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 1. Field preparation

- Plowing I Family male 1.5 2.4 0 0 Hired male 6. 8. 20 20

- Harrowing I Family male 1.3 2.2 0 0 Hired male 5.1 8.3 15 15

- Plowing II Hired male 1. 1. 0 0

- Harrowing II Family male 0.5 1. 0 0 Hired male 0.5 1. 0 0

- Spading Family male 5. 15. 0 0 Hired male 9.3 50. 12.5 50.

- Repairing bunds Family male 5. 13. 0 0 Hired male 9.3 51.5 25. 50.

Sub Total 44.5 151.4 72.5 135. 2. Seedbed

- Plowing Family male 0.4 0.2 0 0 Hired male 0.3 0.4 0 0

- Harrowing with carabou Family male 0.4 0.2 0 0 Hired male 0.3 0.4 0 0

- Spading Family male 6.4 11.1 12.5 25. Hired male 6. 10.3 12.5 12.5

- Pulling seedlings Family male 4.4 7. 0 0 Hired male 10.2 29. 25. 50.

Sub Total 28.4 58.6 50 87.5 3. Planting seedlings

Hired female 5.3 79.4 15. 150. 4. Fertilizing

- First application Family male 5. 6.2 7.5 7.5

- Second application Family male 5. 6.3 10 10

- Third application Family male 2.4 3.3 10 10

Sub Total 12.4 15.8 27.5 27.5

Appendix - 67

Local Varieties

(27 respondents with average size of .5 ha)


(2 respondents with an average size of .2 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 5. Weeding

- First weeding Family male 0.1 0.3 0 0 Family female 0.1 0.3 0 0 Hired female 5.3 101. 7.5 60.

- Second weeding Family male 0.2 0.4 0 0 Family female 0.1 0.3 0 0 Hired female 5.3 68.3 15. 97.5

Sub Total 11.1 170.6 22.5 157.5 6. Harvesting

Family female 5.5 28.2 7.5 37.5 Hired female 7. 86. 7.5 37.5

Sub Total 12.5 114.2 15. 75 7. Drying and storing

Family male 8.4 28.4 25. 50. Hired female 1.3 4. 20. 40.

Sub Total 9.7 32.4 45. 90. Total labor use

Family male 46. 95. 65. 102.5 Hired male 53.5 188.1 117.5 235. Family female 0.2 0.6 0 0 Hired female 24.2 338.7 65. 385.


Family male (%) 37.1 15.3 26.3 14.2 Hired male (%) 43.2 30.2 47.4 32.5 Family female (%) 0.2 0.1 0 0. Hired female (%) 19.5 54.4 26.3 53.3




Appendix - 68

Table 36. Labor use in rice production in Sukorejo Lor village, (Banyumas Kabupaten, Central Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.

Local Varieties



(1 respondents with average size of 1.7 ha) I t e m

Work days Work hours Work days Work hours 1. Field preparation

Family male 0.3 2. 0. 0 Hired male 7.2 44.1 9. 53

Sub Total 7.5 46.1 9. 53 2. Seedbed

Family male 0.1 1. 0 0 Hired male 42. 253.5 39.4 236.5

Sub Total 42.1 254.5 39.4 236.5 3. Transplanting

- Pulling seedlings Family male 0.1 1. 0 0 Hired male 8 48.1 34.1 205

- Mencaplak Family male 0.2 1. 0 0 Hired male 4.2 25.3 31 184 Hired female 1.5 9.2 0 0

- Planting the seedlings Hired male 0.3 2. 0 0 Hired female 25.3 113. 29.4 176.5

Sub Total 39.6 199.6 94.5 565.5 4. Fertilizing

Family male 0.3 2.1 0 0 Hired male 2.4 15.1 5.3 32

Sub Total 2.7 17.1 5.3 32 5. Spraying

Family male 0.1 0.5 0 0 Hired male 2. 11. 2.3 14.1

Sub Total 2.1 11.5 2.3 14.1 6. Weeding

- First weeding Family male 1.5 9. 0 0 Family female 38.3 236 29.4 176.5 Hired female 10.3 66 0 0

Sub Total 50.1 311. 29.4 176.5 7. Harvesting

Family female 2 14. 0 0 Hired female 18.3 77. 29.4 176.5

Sub Total 20.3 91. 29.4 0 8. Transporting

Family female 0.1 1 0. 0. Hired female 4.4 26.5 0. 0.

Sub Total 4.5 27.5 0. 0. 9. Drying and storing

Family male 1. 5.5 0. 0. Hired female 8.4 52.3 0. 0.

Sub Total 9.4 57.8 0. 0.

Appendix - 69

Local Varieties



(1 respondents with average size of 1.7 ha) I t e m


Family male 4. 23.1 0 0 Hired male 119.2 727.8 150.5 901.1 Family female 0. 0 0 0 Hired female 55.4 265.2 58.8 353


Family male (%) 2. 2. 0 0 Hired male (%) 67. 72. 72. 72. Family female (%) 0. 0. 0. 0. Hired female (%) 31. 26. 28. 28.




collier 1980 declining labour absorption 1878 - 1980 in javanese rice production

Documents