statistics on ethnic diversity in the land of papua, indonesia

Original Article

Statistics on Ethnic Diversity in the Land of Papua, Indonesia

Aris Ananta,* Dwi Retno Wilujeng Wahyu Utami and Nur Budi Handayani

Abstract

This paper aims to quantitatively uncover ethnicdiversity in multi-ethnic Land of Papua, an Indo-nesian region with a large inflow of migrationand rising ethno-based movement, consisting ofthe Provinces of Papua and West Papua. Itproduces statistics on ethnic diversity in the Landof Papua, utilizing the tabulation provided byStatistics-Indonesia based on the raw, 100 percent, data set of the 2010 population census. Ituses three measurements of ethnic diversity. Firstis ethnic fractionalization index, showing thedegree of ethnic heterogeneity. Second is ethnicpolarization index, examining the existence offew relatively large ethnic groups of almost thesame sizes. Third is a comparison of percentagesbetween migrant and Papuan groups.

It finds that the Land of Papua is ethnicallyvery heterogeneous, but not polarized. WestPapua is more heterogeneous, but Papua ismore polarized. However, seen from adichotomy between migrants and Papuans,West Papua is very polarized.

In-migration may have increased theprobability of having ethnic conflicts in theregion but does not change the probabilityof the intensity of the conflicts. Therefore, eth-nic conflicts should be anticipated whenevermaking programmes that involve in-migrantsor entice people to migrate into the Landof Papua.

Key words: Papua, Migrant Ethnic Group,Local Ethnic Group, Ethnic Fractionalization,Ethnic Polarization

1. Introduction

In Indonesia, the decentralization process since1999 has brought the government closer to thepeople, but it also pushed a rising number of‘district centred’ policies1 and awareness of eth-nic identity. However, the degree of therelationship between ethnic diversity anddevelopment varies depending on political,social and economic situations as well asbureaucratic system. This relationship is alsosometimes accompanied by inter-ethnic conflictand demand for separation from Republic of In-donesia, particularly in the province of Aceh andLand of Papua (Goebel 2013).

The Land of Papua is one of Indonesianregionswhere ethno-basedmovement has beenon the rise. Other regions include Aceh, Riau,Maluku and Bali (Gayatri 2010). The politicalsituation between the Government and thosewho want to separate from Indonesia in theLand of Papua is often very tense (Singh2008; Widjojo 2010). Furthermore, tensions inthe Land of Papua also occur because of manyother issues such as migration, human rights,exploitation of natural resources and loss ofcultural heritage.

The Land of Papua is a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-religious region with ahigh influx of migration. As shown in Anantaet al. (2015), the Land of Papua has the largestnumber of local ethnic groups, at least 261ethnic groups, among all big islands in Indonesia.

* Ananta: Faculty of Economics and Business,University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Depok16424, West Java, <[email protected]>;Utami and Handayani: Statistics-Indonesia, JalanDr. Sutomo no 6-8. Jakarta, 10710, Indonesia; emails<[email protected]> and <[email protected]>

1. These ‘district-centred’ policies may also result inprograms that are not consistent with the national ones.

Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, vol. ••, no. ••, ••–••doi: 10.1002/app5.143

© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studiespublished by JohnWiley& Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License,which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercialand no modifications or adaptations are made.

bs_bs_banner

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Therefore, as discussed in Tirtosudarmo(2014), examination on how migration affectsethnic diversity has been one important aspectin understanding political and economic devel-opment in the Land of Papua.The Land of Papua consists of two provinces:

West Papua and Papua. Ananta et al. (2015)found that the province of West Papua is ethni-cally heterogeneous as its largest ethnic group(Javanese) contributes only 14.76 per cent, lessthan 20.0 per cent; while the province of Papua,ethnically almost heterogeneous, with its largestethnic group (Dani) forming 23.32 per cent, be-tween 20.00 and 39.90 per cent.2 Furthermore,Table 1 shows that the 25th largest ethnic group

in West Papua is a very small ethnic group,contributing only 0.9 per cent to total populationin the province. Yet, the ‘others’ (the remaininggroups) is still large, 18.60 per cent, meaningthat there are still many very small groups, eachcontributing a maximum of 0.90 per cent.Similarly, as indicated in Table 2, the ‘others’in Papua is also large, 15.39 per cent, while the25th largest one (the Yaghay) is also very small,0.76 per cent.Yet, there has been lack of detailed and

comprehensive statistics of ethnic diversity inthe Land of Papua, especially those at thedistrict level. The article’s objective is to fill inthe absence in statistics of ethnic diversity inthe Land of Papua at the provincial and districtlevels. These statistics are expected to providebetter insights on social, economic and politicalpolices in the Land of Papua. Additionally, uti-lizing the produced statistics, this article also ex-amines howmigration may have affected ethnicdiversity in the Land of Papua.

2. Following Ananta et al. (2015), a district is said to be ho-mogeneous when the largest ethnic group accounts for morethan 95.0 per cent; almost homogeneous when it is between80.0 and 94.99 per cent; less homogeneous, between 60.00and 79.99 per cent; less heterogeneous, between 40.0 and59.99 per cent; almost heterogeneous, between 20.00 and39.99 per cent; and heterogeneous, less than 20.00 per cent.

Table 1 Ethnic Composition by Sex: Province of West Papua, 2010

Rank Ethnic group Male Female Total Per cent Sex ratio

1 Javanese 58,695 52,486 111,181 14.76 1.1182 Arfak 35,613 33,569 69,182 9.18 1.0613 Biak-Numfor 29,168 27,101 56,269 7.47 1.0764 Ayfat 23,160 22,527 45,687 6.06 1.0285 Buginese 21,770 18,317 40,087 5.32 1.1896 Ambonese 17,382 15,539 32,921 4.37 1.1197 Butonese 17,067 14,024 31,091 4.13 1.2178 Baham 11,489 10,680 22,169 2.94 1.0769 Yapen 9,821 8,948 18,769 2.49 1.09810 Mooi 9,341 8,737 18,078 2.40 1.06911 Makassarese 9,343 7,682 17,025 2.26 1.21612 Kei/Evav 8,914 7,694 16,608 2.20 1.15913 Tehit 8,063 7,899 15,962 2.12 1.02114 Toraja 7,293 6,344 13,637 1.81 1.15015 Minahasa 6,793 6,702 13,495 1.79 1.01416 Wandamen 7,058 6,413 13,471 1.79 1.10117 Irahutu 5,964 5,850 11,814 1.57 1.01918 Kokoda 5,087 4,939 10,026 1.33 1.03019 Seram 5,229 4,287 9,516 1.26 1.22020 Inanwatan 4,573 4,348 8,921 1.18 1.05221 Wamesa 4,490 4,244 8,734 1.16 1.05822 Flores 4,523 2,982 7,505 1.00 1.51723 Sundanese 4,027 3,167 7,194 0.95 1.27224 Batak 3,908 3,278 7,186 0.95 1.19225 Ternate 3,726 3,024 6,750 0.90 1.23226 Others 74,010 66,111 140,121 18.60 1.119Total 396,507 356,892 753,399 100.00 1.111

Source: Ananta et al. (2015), Table 4.35

2 Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies •• 2016

© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studiespublished by JohnWiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University

Specifically, diversity is seen with threedifferent measurements. First is ethnic fraction-alization index, showing the degree of ethnicheterogeneity. Second is ethnic polarization in-dex, examining the existence of two or few rel-atively large ethnic groups of almost the samesizes, which may result in ethnic antagonism.Third is a comparison of the percentages ofall migrants as a group versus all Papuans asa group. These three measurements are ex-pected to provide better insights on the poten-tial for ethnic conflict in the Land of Papua,and, if the conflict occurs, how intense it is.

It first briefly shows how ethnic informationhas been seen by the Government of Indonesia,through Statistics-Indonesia (Badan PusatStatistik), followed by a description of thegeography and people of the Land of Papua.It then examines the demographic conditionsof the Land of Papua, before discussing themeasurements of ethnic diversity. The fol-lowing section provides a brief literature

review on the use and interpretation of themeasurements in relation to ethnic related con-flicts. With the three different measurements, itthen examines the extent of ethnic diversity atthe provincial and district levels and studiesthe possible relationship between migrationand ethnic diversity. Before making aconcluding remark, the article investigates thedemographic role of the Javanese ethnic group,the largest ethnic group in Indonesia, in creat-ing ethnic diversity in the Land of Papua.

2. Ethnicity and Indonesian PopulationCensuses

The discussion on ethnicity had been a politicaltaboo since Indonesia’s independence in 1945until the end of New Order Era (1998). As aconsequence, there had been no detailed andcomprehensive statistics on ethnicity in thewhole Indonesia since the first one in 1930,before independence, until 2000. The

Table 2 Ethnic Composition by Sex: Province of Papua, 2010

Rank Ethnic group Male Female Total Per cent Sex ratio

1 Dani 344,015 304,212 648,227 23.32 1.1312 Auwye/Mee 161,875 152,707 314,582 11.32 1.0603 Javanese 123,383 109,557 232,940 8.38 1.1264 Biak-Numfor 75,388 70,514 145,902 5.25 1.0695 Ngalik 71,065 62,497 133,562 4.80 1.1376 Asmat 63,665 59,276 122,941 4.42 1.0747 Dauwa 52,590 44,338 96,928 3.49 1.1868 Buginese 49,182 39,809 88,991 3.20 1.2359 Yapen 37,948 35,456 73,404 2.64 1.07010 Toraja 25,891 22,138 48,029 1.73 1.17011 Ketengban 22,285 19,316 41,601 1.50 1.15412 Moni 21,337 20,109 41,446 1.49 1.06113 Makassarese 22,807 18,432 41,239 1.48 1.23714 Marind Anim 18,849 18,003 36,852 1.33 1.04715 Ambonese 18,717 15,780 34,497 1.24 1.18616 Butonese 16,951 13,494 30,445 1.10 1.25617 Ngalum 15,553 13,563 29,116 1.05 1.14718 Sentani 14,816 14,129 28,945 1.04 1.04919 Hupla 14,069 13,254 27,323 0.98 1.06120 Waropen 12,948 12,116 25,064 0.90 1.06921 Mimika 12,113 11,164 23,277 0.84 1.08522 Damal 11,842 10,567 22,409 0.81 1.12123 Kei/Evav 11,906 10,228 22,134 0.80 1.16424 Minahasa 10,633 10,762 21,395 0.77 0.98825 Yaghay 10,751 10,274 21,025 0.76 1.04626 Others 228,611 199,259 427,870 15.39 1.147Total 1,469,190 1,310,954 2,780,144 100.00 1.121

Source: Ananta et al. (2015), Table 4.31

3Ananta: Ethnic Diversity in Land of Papua, Indonesia


Governments in Reform Era (after 1998) brokethe tradition. They allowed the Statistics-Indonesia to collect and publish statistics onethnicity in Indonesia (including those in theLand of Papua) in their 2000 and 2010 popula-tion censuses. Furthermore, the collection ofthe information on ethnicity is a census, not asurvey, implying that these data collectionshave sufficiently large numbers of observa-tions, which have much smaller samplingerrors than those conducted in surveys,especially small surveys. The 100 per cent sam-pling in the censuses also means that the data atthe district level are even still sufficiently largeto represent the condition at the district level.As in all quantitative surveys and censuses,

the information on ethnicity is based on aself-identification concept. The respondentsare free to identify themselves with whateverthey like to identify, and the interviewerscannot intervene. In other words, the conceptof ethnicity is very fluid. The answer to thequestion can change quickly depending onthe contexts of the respondents.An advantage of this concept is that it is likely

to produce a consistent and reproducible data set,that two different interviewers should get thesame information from a given respondent. Alimitation of the data from the Indonesiancensuses is that it only provided each respondentwith one choice of ethnicity. With more interac-tions of people in the Land of Papua, Indonesia,and theworld, a respondentmay identify himselfor herself with more than one ethnic group.This multiple option is likely to be availablein the future, 2020, population census.At the same time, the published data on

ethnicity from Statistics-Indonesia need to beclassified to make them more meaningful.The data collected and published byStatistics-Indonesia are ethnic categories, notnecessarily ethnic groups.There are many names that actually refer to

one ethnic group. Without a classification,those different names may be seen as differentethnic groups. For example, there are severalother names for Asmat ethnic group: Betch-Mbup, Brazza, Cicak, Citak Mitak andKaunak. These six names actually refer to thesame one ethnic group.

There are also ethnic groups with somedifferent spellings. An example is Mey Baratethnic group. The census recorded this ethnicgroup in two different codes, with one asMey Brat and another one as Meibarat.Actually, they are one same ethnic group.Without a classification, these two names areregarded as two different ethnic groups.Furthermore, there are also some seemingly

different ethnic groups, but they are actuallysub-ethnic groups of one ethnic group. TheAsmat ethnic group, for example, has severalsub-ethnic groups such as Bisman, EmanDucur, Joerat, Kaimo, Safan and Simai. Thesenames have different codes in the 2010 popula-tion census, but they are actually one ethnicgroup, the Asmat. Without a classification,each of them will be regarded as a differentethnic group.Therefore, with the results of the 2010

population census, Ananta et al. (2015) madea comprehensive classification of ethnicgroups. Rather than only working with thepublished data, Ananta et al. analysed thetabulation provided by Statistics-Indonesiabased on the complete, 100 per cent, raw dataset of the 2010 population census. Theyproduced the ‘New Classification of EthnicGroups’, by carrying out a detailed examina-tion of the raw data, enriched with thoroughsociological and anthropological literaturestudies on ethnicity as well as local expertises.Therefore, this classification has been very

important for any study on ethnicity inIndonesia, including in the Land of Papua. Thisarticle uses the ‘New Classification of EthnicGroups’ to calculate statistics of ethnicdiversity in the Land of Papua, for bothprovinces, as well as for the districts in thetwo provinces. It calculates the statistics foreach district directly from the tabulationprovided by Statistics-Indonesia.

3. The Land of Papua: Geography and thePeople

The Island of New Guinea is the second largestisland in the world, after Greenland. This is-land contains two different regions. First isthe Land of Papua, which is part of the Republic



of Indonesia. The second is another country,the Papua New Guinea. This article discussesthe Land of Papua only, located in the mosteastern part of Indonesia.

Racially, the indigenous population ofPapua are of Melanesian heritage. However,the official definition stated that the indigenousPapuans are ‘… people who come from theMelanesian racial family, consisting of theoriginal ethnic groups in the province of Papuaand/or people who are accepted and acknowl-edged as indigenous Papuan by the Papuancustomary (adat) community’.3

As described in Widjojo (2010), the‘Melanesian’ is often perceived as people with‘black’ skin and ‘curly’ hair. However, thesecriteria are only applicable in the highlands.In the coastal areas and communities havinghistorical inter-ethnic marriages with groupsfrom outside Land of Papua, such criteriabecome unclear. That is why the law added‘people who are accepted and acknowledgedas indigenous Papuans by the Papuancustomary community’. Yet, Widjojo main-tained that the phrase ‘Papuan customarycommunity’ was neither clear, even for themember of the Papuan Customary Council(DAP).

After Indonesia’s independence in 1945, thePresident of Indonesia, Soekarno, called thewestern part of New Guinea, the one in theIndonesia’s territory, Irian Barat, which thenbecame one of the provinces in Indonesia.The second president, Soeharto, changed thename into Irian Jaya. It was then changed intoPapua, or Land of Papua (Tanah Papua), withthe Law no. 21 in 2000, after the fall ofSoeharto. In 2003, the province was split intotwo: Irian Jaya Barat and Irian Jaya. Then,the provinces become West Papua and Papua,respectively. The change of its name reflects achange from Indonesian nationalism (Irian) toPapuan nationalism (Papua) and a politicalsymbol of state recognition of the indigenousPapuans.

The two natural-resource endowed provincesare in paradox. In 2010, the provinces are

richer in term of per capita regional GDP (with35.35 million rupiah in West Papua and 30.98million rupiah in Papua) than the nationalGDP (22.28 million rupiah). At the same time,the people in the Land of Papua are poorer thanin Indonesia as a whole. In 2010, the povertyrates (34.88 per cent in West Papua and 36.80per cent in Papua) are much higher than inIndonesia (13.33 per cent).4

Furthermore, as argued in Widjojo (2010),the Papuans were marginalized in theIndonesian social world. The migrants,meaning that they are not Papuans, have beenin better positions in term of culture, politicsand economy. In addition, the rising flow ofmigrants from outside the Land of Papua havequantitatively reduced the proportion ofPapuans and hence further marginalized thePapuans. As a result, the Papuans were trappedin disempowerment structurally and culturally.

4. Demography of the Land of Papua5

In 2010, the population of the Land of Papua isonly 3.59 million, contributing 1.51 per cent ofIndonesia’s population. However, the Land ofPapua contributes 21.78 per cent of totalinhabitable land in Indonesia. Therefore, popu-lation density is very low, at about 8–9 personsper square kilometre, compared with 124 inIndonesia as a whole. Furthermore, the landarea of the province of Papua is 319,036 sq.km, more than three times the one in theprovince of West Papua (97,024 sq.km). Onthe other hand, from 17,504 islands in thewhole Indonesia, Papua contributes only 598islands; but West Papua has 1945 islands.

The number of population in the province ofPapua is 2.83 million, almost four times that inthe province ofWest Papua (0.76 million). TheLand of Papua is also the ‘land of men’, as thesex ratio is very high. In 2010, the Papua’s sexratio is 113.4, meaning that in average there are113.4 male population for every 100 female

3. This is the law, the UUOtsus, Article 1, paragraph (t) ascited in Widjojo (2010), p.47.

4. The data for poverty are cited from http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?kat=1&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=23&notab=2 accessed on 30 December 2014.5. Mentioned otherwise, the statistics in this section arecited from Badan Pusat Statistik (2012a).



http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?kat=1&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=23&notab=2



population in Papua. The sex ratio is similarlyhigh in West Papua, at 112.4.6 Concurrently,the number of population has grown morerapidly in the province of Papua than that inthe province of West Papua, 5.39 vs 3.71 percent annually during 2000–2010.The rapid population growth rates are

mostly attributed by in-migration to theprovinces as the fertility rate in the Land ofPapua is no longer very high. The TFR (totalfertility rate) is already 3.18 in the province ofWest Papua and 2.87 in the province of Papua.Interestingly, the expectancy of life at birth isrelatively high, at 70.2 in West Papua and73.0 in Papua, and this high expectancy of lifemay contribute to the high population growthrate in the provinces.7 Net migration ratesamong the two provinces are positive, meaningthat both provinces receive more in-migrantsthan out-migrants. However, the rates show adifferent magnitude. The net recent migrationrate inWest Papua is higher than that in Papua,5.6 vs 1.1 per cent in 2005–2010 (Badan PusatStatistik 2011).As explained by Tirtosudarmo (2014),

migration to the Land of Papua is not a newissue, it has occurred long before the arrivalof Europeans. The Papuans have alreadyexperienced intensive interactions with peoplecoming from nearby islands of Maluku for 10to 15 thousand years. The interactioncontinued during the colonial period, particu-larly those conducted by the Kingdoms ofTidore and Ternate (since fifteenth century).In the twentieth century, the Buginese fromSouth Sulawesi came to the Land of Papua,especially the western land as it is the closestto the outside world.After 1970, the Government of Indonesia,

under the New Order Rule, decided to makethe Land of Papua one of the destinations ofits ‘transmigration’ program, to move peoplefrom crowded Islands of Java and Bali to otherislands. The transmigrants sent to the Land of

Papua comprised people from various profes-sions, including military and civilians. Mostof the transmigrants are Javanese and mostlyfarmers.Furthermore, with the improvement in trans-

portation, spontaneous migration, especiallyfrom the island of Java, to the Land of Papuahas also escalated. This kind of migration isnot sponsored by the government, but by thepeople’s own initiative and financial resources.The transmigrants usually live in rural areasbut the spontaneous migrants, in urban areas.McGibbon (2004) concluded that this high

influx of migration had displaced anddislocated Papuans, increasing Papuans’ senseof shared identity against the migrants. ThePapuans worried that their cultural survival isbeing threatened. This in turn resulted inresentment among the locals and raised thedemand for independence from Indonesia.Furthermore, in-migration has also enhancedcompetition among the Papuans themselves,resulting in communal and tribal sentimentsand conflicts. As described in Chauvel (2005)and Widjojo (2010), rivalry also occurredamong the Papuans themselves. Inter-tribalcompetition among the Papuans can be ob-served between coastal and mountain peopleand among communities of smaller traditionalgroups.

5. Measurements of Ethnic Diversity

This article uses three measurements of ethnicdiversity: ethnic fractionalization index, ethnicpolarization index and a comparison ofpercentages of migrant versus Papuan groups.The ethnic fractionalization index (EFI) iscalculated, following Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2002), with the following formula.

EFIj ¼ 1�XNi¼1

s2ij

where sij is the proportion of ethnic group i(i=1…N) in region j.Ethnic fractionalization index has a

minimum of 0 for the least fractionalised anda maximum of 1 for the most fractionaliseddistrict. It is zero when it is a perfectly

6. It is still not clear why the sex ratio is very high. Onepossibility is the high mortality rate among women. Thesecond is that the heavy flow of in-migration is dominatedby men.7. The data are cited from Badan Pusat Statistik (2012b).



ethnically homogeneous society, with only oneethnic group in the society. It is one when thesociety is perfectly heterogeneous, where thereare a very huge number of different ethnicgroups. The higher the index, the higher is thedegree of ethnic heterogeneity, or ethnicfractionalization, in the society. It shows theextent a society is split into several distinctethnic groups.

The second measurement is the ethnic polar-ization index (EPOI), following the formula inMontalvo and Reynal-Querol (2002).

EPOIj ¼ 1�XNi¼1

0:5� sij0:5

� �2

sij

where sij is the proportion of group i (i=1…N)in region j.

EPOI examines the existence of two or fewlarge ethnic groups with almost equal sizes.The index reaches a maximum of 1 when aregion consists of two equally sized groups(50–50 composition). The EPOI declines asthe groups differ further from half and halfsplit. The higher the index, the more polarizedis the region. A society is said to be polarizedwhen there are only few different groups withalmost same sizes. A society having only twosimilar sizes but very different groups is a verypolarized society—it is the highest form ofpolarization. The two groups can be veryantagonistic to each other. The index is relatedto an identification/alienation framework. Itshows to what extent individuals identify withtheir own ethnic groups, amplifying the ‘differ-ence’ between one ethnic group and the other.As EPOI is dealing more with ‘antagonism’,a higher degree of EPOI, rather than EFI, canbe an indicator of potential intense conflict inthe society.

The third measurement is a comparisonbetween the percentage of the migrants as awhole and the Papuan as a whole, as theconflict can occur between these two groups.It examines whether they are of equal sizes,each between 40 and 60 per cent. The ethnicpolarization is high, if each group is between40 and 60 per cent.

6. Ethnic Diversity and Conflicts

Alesina and La Ferrara (2005) indicated thatfractionalized societies tend to have poorpolicies and suffer from heavier political andsocial challenges. Yet, some fractionalizedsocieties could do better than the more homo-geneous societies in developing their societies.Indeed, ethnic fractionalization can be apotential for innovation and creativity. Camposand Kuzeyev (2007) showed that the issue ishow the society can manage the conflict. Associal groups have expanded, the socialinteraction in a society may become morecomplex and this interaction is a potential formore and new forms of conflicts. Furthermore,Ghosh et al. (2013) showed that democracycan compensate the potential negativeimpact of ethnic fractionalization. Theyconcluded that, with democracy, ethnicfractionalization can contribute to economicgrowth.

Bleaney and Dimico (2009) also found thatan ethnically fractionalized society is notnecessarily experiencing internal conflicts, butethnic polarization is more likely to result ininternal conflict. However, Esteban et al. (2012)concluded that societies with high ethnicfractionalization index tend to suffer moreconflicts, but not of high intensity. On the otherhand, societies with higher ethnic polarizationindexes have smaller probabilities of experiencinginternal conflicts. Yet, once the conflicts occur,the intensity of the conflicts can be higher in amore ethnically polarized society. Masella(2013) summarized that a country with a highethnic fractionalization index is likely to havepolitical instability, and a country with a highethnic polarization index tends to suffer froma civil conflict.

Nevertheless, as warned by Esteban et al.(2012), these two indexes only show potentialconflicts. The reality of having the conflicts stilldepends on some other things, including politi-cal systems. Ethnic diversity is only one of someother important drivers of conflicts in the Landof Papua.8 In other words, these two indices

8. See Kirsch (2010), for example, on the caution neededto see ethnicity as a source of conflict.



are not the only determinants of having internalconflicts, but they are two important indices thatcan help making better social, economic andpolitical policies.

7. Ethnic Diversity at the Provinces

7.1. Papuan and migrant groups

We use the words ‘Papuans’ and ‘Papuangroups’ to refer to the population who identifythemselves with any ethnic group originallyfrom the Land of Papua recorded in the 2010population census. Furthermore, the informa-tion on Papuan-ness is not related to whetheror not a person is accepted as a Papuan. Asmentioned earlier, the census applies a self-identification concept to measure ethnicity.For example, if a respondent’s physical lookis not a ‘typical’ feature of local ethnicgroups, but the person claimed that he orshe belongs to one of the Papuan groups,the census taker wrote down the ethniccategory mentioned by the respondent, with-out clarifying whether the person had alreadybeen accepted as a Papuan. This may alsoapply to the second generation of migrantsin this land, or the children of inter-ethnicmarriages. This deserves further studies andis beyond the scope of the article.Similarly, the article uses the words ‘migrant

groups’ to mean the respondents in the censuswho did not identify themselves with one ofthe local ethnic groups found in the census.This definition of ‘migrant groups’ does notregard whether the respondents have beenliving in the current residence for a short time,long time or that they were born in the Land ofPapua. It simply refers to the respondents whodid not claim that they were one of the ethnicgroups originally from the Land of Papua.

7.2. Ethnic fractionalization

As calculated in Arifin et al. (2015), WestPapua is the most fractionalized province inIndonesia with EFI at 0.95. Papua is also ahighly ethnically fractionalized province withEFI at 0.91. Interestingly, shown in Table 1,the largest ethnic group in the province ofWest

Papua is a migrant group, the Javanese. Thethree largest Papuan groups in West Papuaare Arfak (second), Biak-Numfor (third) andAyfat (fourth). In addition to the Javanese,these Papuan groups live with other migrantgroups as the fifth to the seventh largest andother Papuans at the eighth to the tenth. Theeleventh is theMakassarese. Thus, Table 1 alsoshows that the influx of the so-called BBM—the Buginese, Butonese and Makassarese—the shorthand of ethnic groups coming fromthe South Sulawesi to West Papua—issignificant.On the contrary, the Dani, a Papuan group,

is the largest ethnic group in the province ofPapua, followed by the Auwye/Mee, anotherPapuan group, making 11.32 per cent, muchsmaller than the first largest one. The third is,nevertheless, the Javanese. Biak-Numfor,who introduced the Papuan identity, is thefourth largest ethnic group. The fifth to theseventh are also Papuans. Other migrantgroups are Buginese, Toraja, Makassarese,Ambonese, Butonese, Kei and Minahasa.Unlike in West Papua, the BBM group doesnot account for a significant portion of thePapua’s population. See Table 2.

7.3. Ethnic polarization

The two provinces in the Land of Papua are notethnically polarized. Arifin et al. (2015)calculated that the EPOI is only 0.19 for theprovince of West Papua and 0.29 for theprovince of Papua. In other words, though theLand of Papua is ethnically fractionalized, thediversity among all ethnic groups (migrantsand Papuans) may not indicate a potential forhigh intensity of conflicts. On the other hand,seen from migrants versus Papuans, theprovince of West Papua is very polarized. Asindicated in Table 3, the Papuans contributed51.48 per cent, almost equal to the migrants,48.51 per cent. This is different from theprovince of Papua, where the Papuans formeda much larger percentage, 76.31 per cent.Furthermore, variation at some districts, wheretheir EPOIs are relatively high, should beanticipated as potential conflicts.



8. Ethnic Diversity at the Districts

8.1. Ethnic fractionalization

Geographically smaller, the province of WestPapua consists of 11 districts, as compared

with 29 districts in the province of Papua. Asshown in Table 3, 5 out of 11 districts in theprovince of West Papua are almost heteroge-neous, i.e. the percentage of the largest ethnicgroup is between 20.0 and 39.9 per cent, andtwo are heterogeneous, i.e. the percentage is

Table 3 EFI, EPOI, Name and Percentage of the Largest Ethnic Group, Percentage of Local Ethnic Groups byDistricts: Land of Papua, 2010

Largest ethnic groupPapuan groups

No Code Provinces/Districts EFI EPOI Name Per cent Per cent

91 Province of West Papua 0.95 0.19 Javanese 14.76 51.491 9101 Fakfak 0.86 0.41 Baham 32.39 47.612 9102 Kaimana 0.94 0.23 Irahutu 15.50 51.563 9103 Teluk Wondama 0.85 0.44 Wandamen 34.22 73.574 9104 Teluk Bintuni 0.91 0.30 Aikwakai 20.33 52.975 9105 Manokwari 0.86 0.44 Arfak 29.90 56.596 9106 South Sorong 0.85 0.46 Tehid 30.87 83.087 9107 Sorong 0.80 0.52 Javanese 41.46 36.078 9108 Raja Ampat 0.79 0.52 Biak Numfor 42.49 73.49 9109 Tambrauw 0.43 0.70 Karon 73.19 94.9910 9110 Maybrat 0.41 0.71 Ayfat 74.05 95.411 9171 City of Sorong 0.94 0.22 Javanese 13.79 29.93

94 Province of Papua 0.91 0.29 Dani 23.32 76.311 9401 Merauke 0.84 0.46 Javanese 34.32 37.272 9402 Jayawijaya 0.32 0.49 Dani 82.02 90.793 9403 Jayapura 0.92 0.27 Sentani 18.15 61.484 9404 Nabire 0.89 0.36 Javanese 22.21 47.545 9408 Kepulauan Yapen 0.74 0.58 Yapen 47.86 78.096 9409 Biak Numfor 0.50 0.62 Biak Numfor 69.89 73.827 9410 Paniai 0.11 0.20 Auwye 94.50 97.588 9411 Puncak Jaya 0.11 0.20 Dani 94.31 98.249 9412 Mimika 0.93 0.24 Mimika 12.95 42.5110 9413 Boven Digul 0.88 0.41 Mandobo 21.48 66.9511 9414 Mappi 0.65 0.74 Asmat 53.58 88.6212 9415 Asmat 0.29 0.45 Asmat 84.26 89.5913 9416 Yahukimo 0.71 0.66 Ngalik 48.60 98.5814 9417 Pegunungan Bintang 0.66 0.81 Ngalum 42.61 95.3115 9418 Tolikara 0.03 0.07 Dani 98.31 99.0516 9419 Sarmi 0.94 0.22 Biga 14.56 70.2517 9420 Keerom 0.85 0.42 Javanese 34.34 41.3318 9426 Waropen 0.71 0.62 Waropen 51.32 79.5919 9427 Supiori 0.11 0.20 Biak Numfor 94.55 96.4820 9428 Mamberamo Jaya 0.86 0.42 Waropen 31.74 93.0721 9429 Nduga 0.04 0.08 Dauwa 97.90 99.1622 9430 Lanny Jaya 0.05 0.09 Dani 97.62 99.9023 9431 Central Mamberamo 0.34 0.63 Dani 78.98 99.4724 9432 Yalimo 0.07 0.13 Ngalik 96.55 99.2025 9433 Puncak 0.52 0.74 Dani 65.99 99.2626 9434 Dogiyai 0.03 0.06 Auwyee 98.35 99.0127 9435 Intan Jaya 0.42 0.66 Moni 74.29 99.8128 9436 Deiyai 0.04 0.08 Auwye 97.83 98.9429 9471 City of Jayapura 0.93 0.24 Javanese 19.17 34.91

EFI, Ethnic Fractionalization Index; EPOI, Ethnic Polarization Index.Source: Arifin et al. (2015) for EFI and EPOI at the two provinces; and authors’ calculation for the districts.



lower than 20 per cent. There are no almosthomogeneous or homogeneous districts inWest Papua.Table 3 also shows that EFI among districts

in West Papua ranges from 0.41 in theRegency of Maybrat to 0.94 in the Regencyof Kaimana and City of Sorong. The range ofEFI is longer in Papua, from 0.03 in theRegency of Dogiyai to 0.94 in the Regencyof Sarmi. As described graphically inFigure 1, more districts in West Papua havedarker legends of EFI. This pattern is consis-tent with the finding, mentioned earlier in thisarticle, that the province of West Papua as awhole is more ethnically fractionalized thanthe province of Papua as a whole.Unlike districts in the province of West

Papua, which has no homogeneous oralmost homogeneous districts, there are fivehomogeneous and five almost homogeneousdistricts in the province of Papua. The most ho-mogenous district in the province of Papua is

the Regency of Dogiyai, with Auwye, aPapuan ethnic group, forming 98.35 per centof the regency population, followed by theRegency of Tolikara, with the Dani, a Papuanethnic group, making 98.31 per cent as thehighest. Both regencies are among the leastfractionalized districts in the Land of Papuawith very low EFI (0.03) at the respectivedistricts. These districts are also among theleast polarized districts with EPOI at 0.06 and0.07, respectively.In the province of Papua, the Dani, the

largest ethnic group in the province, thoughonly contributing 23.32 per cent, is concen-trated in six districts, where the Dani is thelargest ethnic groups. The lowest percentageof the Dani is 65.99 per cent in the Regencyof Puncak and the highest (98.31 per cent) isin the Regency of Tolikara. The four other dis-tricts are Regencies Lanny Jaya, Puncak Jaya,Jayawijaya and Central Mamberamo. As seenin Figure 1, these districts are located near to

Figure 1 Ethnic Fractionalization Index and the Largest Ethnic Group in Land of Papua by District, 2010



each other in the middle of the province andtend to be less fractionalised. They are eventhe least fractionalised, dominated by oneethnic group. Although not the largest one,the Dani is also found in seven other districtsin the province of Papua: the Regency ofJayapura (5.70 per cent), followed by Nabire(4.92 per cent), Intan Jaya (4.34 per cent),Keerom (4.02 per cent), Yalimo (1.44 percent), Nduga (1.26 per cent), and Dogiyai(0.33 per cent).

The districts with Dani’s concentration arein contrast with the most heterogeneousRegency of Mimika, which is one of nineheterogeneous or almost heterogeneous districtsin the province of Papua. The Regency ofMimika is also the most heterogeneous districtin Indonesia (Arifin et al. 2015). TheMimika isthe largest ethnic group, but accounting foronly 12.95 per cent. This regency is highlyfractionalized with EFI at 0.93, but not polar-ized, having EPOI at only 0.24. The second

most heterogeneous district in the province ofPapua is the Regency of Sarmi with Biga/Sobei, a Papuan group, as the largest ethnicgroup contributing 14.56 per cent of theregency population. This regency is highlyfractionalized at EFI at 0.94 and not polarized,with EPOI at 0.22.

8.2. Ethnic polarization

Although the two provinces are not highlyethnically polarized, some districts in the Landof Papua are highly ethnically polarized. TheEPOI in West Papua ranges from 0.22 in thecity of Sorong to 0.71 in the Regency ofMaybrat. As with EFI, the range of EPOI is alsolonger in Papua. The map in Figure 2 revealsthat most districts in West Papua also havedarker legends of EPOI, relative to those in Pa-pua. Although the province of West Papuaseems to have more districts with high EPOI,the districts with the largest EPOI are located

Figure 2 Ethnic Polarization Index in Land of Papua by District, 2010



in Papua. These highly polarized districts needa special attention as the probability of tenseconflicts may be higher in these districts.As shown in Figure 2, the Regency of

Pegunungan Bintang in the province of Papuahas the highest EPOI, with the Ngalum (aPapuan) as the largest ethnic group accountingfor 42.61 per cent. The size of the secondlargest ethnic group is close to the first one. Itis the Ketengban,9 also a Papuan, contributing38.70 per cent.Other districts with relatively high EPOI are

the Regencies of Puncak and Mappi, also inPapua. The Regency of Puncak has tworelatively large ethnic groups. The first is theDani, making 65.99 per cent, and the secondis the Damal (another Papuan), forming 20.34per cent. The remaining ethnic groups consistof many small ethnic groups, with most ofthem contributing less than 0.50 per cent.Similarly, the two largest ethnic groups in theRegency of Mappi are Papuans, with theAsmat as the largest ethnic group (53.58 percent) and Yaghay as the second largest one(25.42 per cent). Each of the remaining groupsis less than 5.0 per cent, andmany are even lessthan 1.0 per cent.At the same time, the districts with the

lowest EPOI are also located in the provinceof Papua. One of them is the Regency ofDeiyai, with the Auwye, a Papuan, contributing97.83 per cent of the population in the regency.The second largest one is substantially muchlower than the first. It is the Moni, also aPapuan, making 1.10 per cent.Furthermore, seen from migrants versus

Papuans, the districts in the province of Papuaare neither as polarized as those in the provinceof West Papua. From 37 districts in theprovince of Papua, there are only three districtshaving migrants and Papuans almost the samesizes. They are Regencies of Nabire, Mimikaand Keerom. On the other hand, from 11districts in the province of West Papua, thereare four districts of high polarization indexesbetween migrants and Papuans. The four

districts are Regencies of FakFak, Kaimana,Teluk Bintuni and Manokwari. See Table 3.

9. Migration and Ethnic Diversity

9.1. Papuans and Migrant Groups

As shown in Table 3, the Papuans in theprovince of West Papua comprise more thanhalf of the province population while they evencomprise a larger percentage in the province ofPapua (76.31 per cent). In West Papua,Regencies of Trambrauw and Maybrat are thedistricts with the percentage of Papuans about95.0 per cent. The Regency of Tambrauw isthe home of Karon (a Papuan group), contrib-uting 73.19 per cent followed by anotherPapuan group, the Biak-Numfor, making only19.42 per cent. The third one is very small, amigrant group, the Buginese, contributing only1.41 per cent. Meanwhile, the Regency ofMaybrat is the home of Ayfat, contributing74.05 per cent, followed by another Papuangroup, Arfak (21.16 per cent). The third groupis theMare, a migrant group from the islands ofMaluku, contributing 3.20 per cent. Alldistricts in West Papua have Papuans withpercentages of more than 50 per cent, exceptin the Regencies of Fakfak and Sorong as wellas the city of Sorong.The Papuans in the Regency of Fakfak,

West Papua, account for 47.61 per cent,consisting of the Baham (32.39 per cent), Iha(5.77 per cent), Onin (2.42 per cent) and othersmall groups. Baham is the largest ethnic groupin the regency, followed by three migrantgroups: Butonese (10.15 per cent), Javanese(8.58 per cent) and Kei (7.25 per cent). Iha isthe fifth largest ethnic group. The sixth toeighth largest ethnic groups (Kapaur, Seram,Ambonese and Buginese) in Fakfak are mi-grant groups. Indeed, Fakfak is a migrant townthat has a long history as a port since the Dutchsettlement. It is therefore not surprising thatFakfak is a highly fractionalised, although nota highly polarized regency.The largest ethnic group in the Regency of

Sorong is Javanese, having a higher percentage(41.46 per cent) than the percentage of totalnumber of Papuans (36.07 per cent). The

9. Ketengban has many different names such as Kupel,Hmanggona, Oipomek, Eipomek, Eiponek, Hmanggona,Hmonono, Kumnyal and Nalca.



second to fourth largest ones are the Papuans,namely, in order of Mooi, Kalabra and Ayfat,altogether accounting for 23.01 per cent. OtherPapuans with each having more than 1.0 percent are Seget, Tehid, Biak Numfor, Inanwatanand Arfak.

The district with the lowest percentage ofthe Papuans is seen in the city of Sorong, WestPapua, with only 29.93 per cent. The industrialcity is the most heterogeneous district of theprovince, with a migrant group, the Javanese,as the largest ethnic group (13.79 per cent). Inaddition, the Papuans live with two othermigrant groups—Buginese (from the islandof Sulawesi, 10.50 per cent) and Ambonese(from the islands of Maluku, 10.15 per cent).The fourth largest ethnic group is a Papuan,the Biak-Numfor, contributing 6.30 per cent.Yet, the fifth largest ethnic group is anothermigrant group, the Butonese (5.51 per cent)from the Island of Sulawesi. There are nineother migrant groups among the 20 largestethnic groups in the city of Sorong. They areall from the island of Sulawesi or islands ofMaluku, with two exceptions. One is Flores,from East Nusa Tenggara, contributing 1.59per cent. Another is the Batak from the islandof Sumatra, forming 1.86 per cent. In otherwords, the city of Sorong is a district ofmigrants. It is a highly ethnically fractionalizedbut not polarized district. Therefore, theprobability of tense ethnic conflicts can besmall in this city.

The Regency of Kaimana is also heteroge-neous but does not have as many migrant-groups as the city of Sorong does. FollowingIrahutu (Papuan) as the largest ethnic group,the Kei, forming 9.10 per cent, originatingfrom islands of Maluku, is the second largestethnic group. The third largest ethnic group isalso a migrant, Acehnese, from the Island ofSumatra, forming 8.11 per cent. The Javaneseis the fourth, making 7.50 per cent. As in thewhole region of the Land of Papua and itsdistricts, all other migrant-groups among the20 largest ethnic groups in the Regency ofKaimana are either from the island of Sulawesior the islands of Maluku. As with the city ofSorong, the Regency of Kaimana is also highlyfractionalized, but not polarized.

Unlike West Papua, most districts in theprovince of Papua have the Papuans contribut-ing more than 50 per cent. Even, there are 16districts where the percentages of Papuans arehigher than 90.0 per cent. The largest percent-age (99.90 per cent) is seen in the Regency ofLanny Jaya, with the Dani as the largest ethnicgroup. This regency is the home of Dani,making 97.62 per cent of the population,followed by the Dauwa, another Papuan, with2.28 per cent. Out of the 29 districts in theprovince, there are only five, where thePapuans contribute less than 50 per cent. SeeTable 3.

The district with the second largest percent-age of the Papuans is the Regency of IntanJaya. They contribute 99.91 per cent of theregency population, with the largest groupbeing the Moni (74.29 per cent). Three otherlargest groups are also Papuan groups: Woda(12.43 per cent), Dauwa (8.55 per cent) andDani (4.34 per cent). Each of the remainingethnic groups is very small, contributing lessthan 1.0 per cent.

The lowest percentage of the Papuans in theprovince of Papua is seen in the City ofJayapura. There, although the Javanese is thelargest ethnic group, this group only contrib-utes less than 20 per cent as this city is hetero-geneous. Among the 10 largest ethnic groupsin this city, the second, fourth, sixth, seventh,eighth and tenth are other migrant groups,namely, Buginese, Makassarese, Toraja,Ambonese, Butonese and Minahasa. ThePapuans are only Yapen (the third), BiakNumfor (the fifth) and Dani (the ninth).

Finally, to have a quantitative assessment onthe extent of the relationship between in-migration and ethnic diversity, we use a regres-sion analysis to find the existence of therelationship. As shown in Figure 3, theexistence of the relationship depends on themeasurement of ethnic diversity. Measuredwith EFI, the correlation is positive, the higherthe percentage of in-migrant in a district, thehigher is the ethnic fractionalization index inthat district. This finding reveals that as themigrants came from various ethnic groups inIndonesia, an increase in in-migration meansa larger number of ethnic groups in the region.



On the other hand, there is no relationshipbetween migration and ethnic polarizationindex. This absence of relationship is becauseof the high variety of ethnic groups of themigrants. Nevertheless, if in-migration con-tinues by focusing on few ethnic groups, polar-ization may then increase. In other words,following the framework of Esteban et al.(2012), migration may have resulted in moreethnic conflicts in the Land of Papua, butmigration does not contribute to the intensityof the conflict.

9.2. Demographic Contribution of theJavanese in the Ethnic Diversity

This section specifically focuses on theJavanese, as a relatively ubiquitous migrantgroup in Indonesia, also in the Land of Papua.Initially, as mentioned earlier, the migrantgroups in the Land of Papua originated mostlyfrom the nearby island of Sulawesi (includingBuginese, Makassarese, Toraja, Butonese,Minahasa, Sangir and Kaili) and the islandsof Maluku (including Kei, Seram, Ambonese,Tanimbar, Ternate, Tidore, Gebe and Tobelo).Other migrant groups include the Javanese,

Sundanese, Malay, Batak, Acehnese, Singkil,Dayak and Flores. All of them, except theFlores, have their home provinces in westernIndonesia. Among them, Javanese, the largestethnic group in Indonesia, plays the most

important role in shaping ethnic compositionin the Land of Papua. It is the largest ethnicgroup in West Papua and the third in Papua.The Javanese migration is perhaps the mostrecent one, after 1970, during the Indonesia’sNew Order Government, with its transmigra-tion program, to move people from denselypopulated islands of Java and Bali to outsidethese islands. Additionally and importantly,as discussed briefly earlier in this article, therehas also been inflow of spontaneous migration(voluntary, not under the transmigration pro-gram) of Javanese to the Land of Papua, be-cause of economic opportunity in the Land ofPapua, especially the province of West Papua.Furthermore, the demographic role of the

Javanese is much stronger than those of theother four largest Indonesian ethnic groups(Sundanese, Malay, Batak and Madurese) andthe Chinese Indonesians.10 Among the 25 larg-est ethnic groups in each of the provinces in theLand of Papua, the Sundanese and Batak areonly seen in the province of West Papua.Moreover, the Sundanese ranks only the 23rd,a very small ethnic group, contributing only0.95 per cent. Similarly, the Batak only forms0.95 per cent. No Sundanese and Batak areseen significantly in the province of Papua.There are no Malay and Madurese among the

10. The Chinese Indonesian is included because it is thelargest ‘foreign’ ethnic group, often seen as playing animportant role in the study of Indonesia’s ethnicity.

Figure 3 Scatter Plot between In-migration Rate and EFI: Land of Papua, 2010



25 largest ethnic groups in both provinces. TheChinese, the 15th largest ethnic group inIndonesia, and the largest foreign ethnic group,is not seen in the two provinces either.

As shown in Table 4, the Javanese is alwaysamong the 10 largest ethnic groups in eachdistrict in the province of West Papua.Javanese is also found in all districts in theprovince of Papua, except in the Regency ofNduga, but not always as one of the 10largest ethnic groups. Regency of Nduga isa homogeneous district, with Dauwa, aPapuan, making 97.90 per cent. TheJavanese is not among the 10 largest ethnicgroups in the following three districts:Regencies of Yahukimo (11th), Puncak(11th) and Mamberamo Raya (20th).

Furthermore, the Javanese is the largestethnic group in four districts in Papua,namely, Regencies of Keerom, Merauke,

Nabire and the city of Jayapura. These fourdistricts are very fractionalized but nothighly polarized.

In some districts in West Papua, theJavanese contributes significantly to ethniccomposition in the respective districts. Thehighest demographic contribution of theJavanese is seen in the Regency of Sorong(41.46 per cent) as seen in Figure 1, followedby the Regencies of Manokwari and TelukBintuni, and the city of Sorong. These fourdistricts are highly fractionalized but nothighly polarized.

The smallest concentration of the Javanesein the province of West Papua is seen in theRegency of Maybrat (0.36 per cent),although it is the fourth largest ethnic group.The three largest ethnic groups in Maybratare all Papuan groups, with the Ayfat as thelargest one.

Table 4 Percentage and Ranking of the Javanese by Districts and Provinces: Land of Papua, Indonesia, 2010

Provinces/Districts Per cent Rank Provinces/Districts Per cent Rank

Province of West Papua 14.76 1 Province of Papua 8.38 3Fakfak 8.58 3 Merauke 34.32 1Kaimana 7.50 4 Jayawijaya 2.09 4Teluk Wondama 3.61 7 Jayapura 16.17 2Teluk Bintuni 14.45 2 Nabire 22.21 1Manokwari 18.78 2 Kepulauan Yapen 4.55 3South Sorong 3.93 6 Biak Numfor 69.89 2Sorong 41.46 1 Paniai 0.36 6Raja Ampat 4.11 5 Puncak Jaya 0.35 7Tambrauw 0.54 6 Mimika 12.85 2Maybrat 0.36 4 Boven Digoel 11.78 4City of Sorong 13.79 1 Mappi 2.20 5

Asmat 1.19 6Yahukimo 0.24 11Pegunungan Bintang 0.42 10Tolikara 0.12 6Sarmi 9.01 2Keerom 34.34 1Waropen 5.99 4Supiori 0.42 5Mamberamo Raya 0.45 20Nduga none noneLanny Jaya 0.03 4Central Mamberamo 0.07 6Yalimo 0.01 9Puncak 0.13 11Dogiyai 0.11 6Intan Jaya 0.02 8Deiyai 0.08 6City of Jayapura 19.17 1

Source: Provincial statistics are cited from Ananta et al. (2015); district statistics are calculated by the authors.



10. Concluding Remarks

Located in the easternmost Indonesia, the Landof Papua has the Papuans as the majority,making 51.49 per cent in the province of WestPapua and 76.31 per cent in the province ofPapua. There are only two districts in WestPapua and five districts in Papua where thePapuans contribute less than 50 per cent ofthe respective district population. There aremany migrants originating from the nearbyisland of Sulawesi and islands of Maluku.However, the most demographically dominantmigrant group is the Javanese, from far-awayisland of Java. It should be noted that theJavanese is also the largest ethnic group inIndonesia, contributing 40.06 per cent to totalpopulation of Indonesia.Furthermore, the two provinces are highly

ethnically heterogeneous, but not highlyethnically polarized. Therefore, following theframework posed by Esteban et al. (2012), thetwo provinces have potentials for internalethnic-related conflict. Yet, as the ethnic polar-ization indices are not high, the conflicts, ifthey occur, will not be severe. It should benoted, however, that there are some districtswith high polarization indexes. These districtsneed attention because of the possible potentialfor ethnic antagonism. On the other hand, withthe dichotomy between migrant and Papuangroups, the province of West Papua is verypolarized, having almost the same sizes ofmigrant and Papuan groups.As shown with a simple regression analysis,

a district receiving higher rate of in-migrationtends to have a higher ethnic fractionalizationindex. However, in-migration rate is not signif-icantly associated with ethnic polarizationindex. In other words, in-migration may haveincreased the probability on ethnic conflictsbut does not change the probability of intenseconflicts. In-migration to the Land of Papuaconsisted of people from various differentgroups, and therefore, it did not result in highethnic polarization indexes. However, if futuretrend of in-migration is dominated by a certainethnic group, ethnic polarization index mayincrease in districts that are currently not highlypolarized. One policy implication is that any

development policies bringing new migrantsshould consider the impact on the ethniccomposition of the destination areas. The poli-cies should diversify the ethnicity of the newmigrants, along with other local issues. Thetransmigration program, which involvesmainly the Javanese, should pay attention tothe impact on ethnic composition.Further quantitative research should be

carried out on fractionalization and polariza-tion within the migrant and Papuan groupsseparately. This is to enrich understanding oninternal conflicts among the migrants andamong the Papuans. Qualitative research canbe carried out in districts with high fractionali-zation or polarization indexes, to have betterinsights on local dynamics and possible con-flicts.

May 2016.

References

Arifin EN, Ananta A, Utami DRWW,Handayani NB, Pramono A (2015) Quanti-fying Indonesia’s ethnic diversity: statisticsat national, provincial, and district levels.Asian Population Studies 11(3), 232–256.

Ananta A, Arifin EN, Sairi Hasbullah M,Handayani NB, Pramono A (2015) Demog-raphy of Indonesia’s Ethnicity. Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Alesina A, La Ferrara E (2005) Ethnic diver-sity and economic performance. Journal ofEconomic Literature XLIII, 762–800.

Badan Pusat Statistik (2011) Migrasi internalpenduduk Indonesia: hasil sensus penduduk2010 [internal migration in Indonesia:results of the 2010 population census].Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta.

Badan Pusat Statistik (2012a) Statistik Indonesia.Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta.

Badan Pusat Statistik (2012b) Estimasi param-eter demografi: trend fertilitas, mortalitas,dan migrasi hasil SP 2010. [Estimation ofDemographic Parameters: Fertility, Mortal-ity, and Migration Trend. Results of 2010Population Census]. Badan Pusat Statistik,Jakarta. Downloaded from www.bps.go.id/hasil_publikasi at 26 December 2014.



http://www.bps.go.id/hasil_publikasi

http://www.bps.go.id/hasil_publikasi

Bleaney, M, Dimico, A (2009). Ethnicdiversity and local conflicts. DiscussionPaper in Economics no 09/14 Universityof Nottingham.

Campos N, Kuzeyev VS (2007) On thedynamics of ethnic fractionalism. AmericanJournal of Political Science 51(3), 620–639.

Chauvel R (2005) Constructing PapuanNationalism: History, Ethnicity, andAdaptation. In: Policy Studies, Vol. 14.East-West Center, Washington, D.C.

Esteban J, Mayoral L, Ray D (2012) Ethnicityand conflict: an empirical study. TheAmerican Economic Review 112(4),1310–1342.

Gayatri IH (2010) Nationalism, democratizationand primordial sentiment in Indonesia:problems of ethnicity versus Indonesianness.(the cases of Aceh, Riau, Papua, and Bali).Journal of Indonesian Sciences in Humanity3, 189–203.

Ghosh, S, Gregoriou, A Anirban M (2013). Onthe role of democracy in the ethnicity-growth relationship: theory and evidence.CEDI Working Paper no. 13-02. WestLondon, UK: Brunel University, March,West London, UK.

Goebel Z (2013) The Idea of Ethnicity inIndonesia. In: Paper 71. Papers in CulturalStudies, Tilburg.

Kirsch S (2010) Ethnographic representa-tion and the politics of violence inWest Papua. Critique of Anthropology30(1), 3–22.

Masella P (2013) National Identity and ethnicdiversity. Journal of Population Economics26(2), 437–454.

McGibbon R (2004) Plural Society in Peril:Migration, Economic Change, and thePapua Conflict. East-West Center,Washington D.C.

Montalvo, JG and Reynal-Querol, M (2002)Why Ethnic Fractionalization? Polariza-tion, Ethnic Conflict, and EconomicGrowth. Economics Working Paper,Department of Economics and Business,Universitat Pompeu Fahra.

Singh, B (2008) Papua. Geo-politics and thequest for nationhood. Transaction Pub-lishers, New Brunswick, USA.

Tirtosudarmo, R (2014) “Migrasi dan etnisitasdi kaimana, Papua Barat”. [Migration andEthnicity in Kaimana, West Papua]. Paperpresented at “End of the Year Seminar“Tim Kajian Papua LIPI dan Jaringan DamaiPapua (JDP)”, Jakarta.

Widjojo, MS (ed.) (2010) Papua road map.Negotiating the past, improving the presentand securing the future. KITLV-Jakarta,LIPI, and Yayasan Obor, Jakarta.



statistics on ethnic diversity in the land of papua, indonesia

Documents