Circular Migration in Indonesia Author(s): Graeme J. Hugo Reviewed work(s): Source: Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No.

1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 59-83 Published by: Population Council Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972690 . Accessed: 29/01/2012 08:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Population Council is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Population and Development Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Circular Migration in Indonesia

Graeme J. Hugo

body of fieldevidencepoints A substantial growing and but also to the social and economic incidence, not only to the widespread Indowithin and of seasonalmigration, commuting significance circulation, dein however, goes unrecorded large-scale nesia. The bulkof thismobility, criteria adoptthefamiliar and censuses,whichroutinely mographic surveys and questions more-or-less longer distance, predominantly designed detect to type The in permanent changes usualplace ofresidence. low levelsofthelatter the appearto confirm of movement revealedby thesecensusesand surveys the (and in particular inhabistereotyping mostIndonesians of conventional of peasantswho are born,live, and die in thesame tants Java)as immobile of natalvillage.Although the traveling beyond confines their house,scarcely by migration detected thecensusis theinterprovincial, more-or-less permanent butone subset total in of mobility Indonesia, theabsenceofmore in population micensus-defined national even regional)level statistics (or comprehensive in have becomesynonymous theliterature.1 mobility gration population and studies carried of of the Thispaperreviews findings a number intensive population whether nonpermanent to outin several parts Indonesia establish of significance and demographic of mobility a phenomenon social, economic, is the demonstrates widea of in Indonesia. Evidencefrom largenumber surveys in Indonesia and of of mobility forms population occurrence temporary spread that takes.The majorexplanations havebeenput that themany forms mobility levels of Accelerating are forward explainthismobility thensummarized. to for and implications havebothshort- long-term mobility temporary population within Indonesia.A number of a distribution wealth achieving moreequitable of ofthese paper.Severaldirecsection this issuesareraisedintheconcluding in in are into mobility identified which tions continuing research nonpermanent of to contribution theunderstanding could make a significant demographers Indonesian society. place within changestaking fundamental
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8, NO. 1 (MARCH 1982) 59

60

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

It is noteasyto distinguish between permanent nonpermanent and populationmobility. Zelinsky(1971: 225-226) defines conventional migration as or "anypermanent semi-permanent as changeofresidence" circulation "a and in great of variety movements usuallyshort or term, repetitive cyclical nature, butall having common lackof anydeclared in the intention a permanent of or longlasting changein residence."A further distinction be madebetween can commuting, defined regular as travel outsidethevillage(usuallyforworkor education) from to 24 hours, circular for 6 and continuous migration, involving but temporary have absences of greater thanone day. Some fieldworkers adopted upperthresholds continuous of or to absenceof 6 months 12 months distinguish between circular permanent and migration. However, theseworkershave also suggested muchessentially that circular was as mobility defined permanent adopting by suchabsolute criteria. the lies Clearly, difference in the intentions individuals thenature level of their of and and commitment parto ticular places, and suchphenomena defyattempts establish to absolutetemthe can poralcriteria. Despitetheseproblems, bulkof movements be readily distinguished permanent temporary. as or In Indonesiathecensusand mostconventional large-scale surveys are designed systematically to excludethebulkof nonpermanent This movement. makesit impossible furnish to accurate national provincial or estimates the of extent commuting circular of and migration. Some policymakers demograand phersmaketheavailability suchestimates sine qua non of thesignifiof the cance of a demographic phenomenon. Clearlyit is important obtainthese to estimates, thefactthat but noneare availablehereis morea reflection the of inappropriateness current of data collectionmethods Indonesia'sdemoto graphic, social,andeconomic reality than theinsignificance thephenomof of enon.Accordingly aimofthefirst the is section to demonstrate thebulkof how nonpermanent mobility missedin conventional collection to draw is data and uponthescattered study case evidence establish to national that, although estimatesof thevolumeof nonpermanent mobility notavailable,it is a pheare nomenon demonstrable of significance. Evidence of widespread mobility nonpermanent

In the1971censussome7.3 million Indonesians, 6.4 percent thepopulaor of tion,had lived at some timeoutsidetheir and province present of residence hence were classifiedas "migrants." However,as has been demonstrated elsewhere (Hugo, 1978: 10-12)thecriteria in used to define migrants that census excluded mostshort-distance short-term and movers.2 extent which The to thetemporal in criteria of adopted thecensusexcludedpopulation movements significance be gaugedfrom can field survey in evidence.A study 14West Java villagesthat attempted detect permanent nonpermanent to all and movesassociatedwithworkand formal education foundthatonlyone-third all such of movesmetthecensusmigration criteria time (Hugo, 1975, 1978). Moreover,

Graeme

J. Hugo

61

who metthe of 76 villagesbetween and 98 percent themovers in thesurvey of Javaandhencedidnot the movedwithin province West censustimecriteria becausetheydid not as as qualify migrants faras thecensuswas concerned region. defining of crosstheboundary a censusmigration from vilmovement on The WestJavastudyconcentrated population and centers Jakarta Bandung(see map). of lages to the majormetropolitan as mawereidentified having mobility types nonpermanent of Severaldistinct Theseincluded of commuting distances up to 50 km,to over jor significance. to or employment irregularly engage in urban-based participate full-time in migrais jobs. More distinctive circular to worksupplementaryvillage-based in usual place of residence thevilmovers notchangetheir do tion,whereby a day. longer than single destination periods for at lage butareabsent an urban employment permanent full-time with can Againsuchmovement be associated workin the informal but at the destination, usuallyinvolvesnonpermanent somevillageusually maintain Circular migrants economy. sector theurban of is migrate determined with and basedemployment, thefrequency whichthey earnings the at it, involvedand thecosts of traversing their by thedistance and of in destination, theavailability work thehomevillage.Much,butbyno the periods during extended meansall, circular is mobility seasonal,occurring the and rice planting harvesting during wet oflimited opportunity between job long-distance the season and during dryseason. Therewas also significant from WestJavato theOuterIslandsto workon plantations circular migration and aboften or oil/mineral projects, undercontract involving development of thesesametypes nonpersencesofup to twoyears.Rusli(1978) showsthat were of significance migration in between ruralareas in manent movement wereat least of WestJava.In the14 study villagesthree-quartersthefamilies in and outside village,mostly Jakarta the on partly dependent incomesources Bandung. to in have pointed studies Jakarta clearly theimporCommunity-based Jellinek (1978a,b),in in city.In particular migrants that tance nonpermanent of the has in whereby herstudy petty of traders Jakarta, described pondoksystem in the cluster together circular (usuallyfrom same regionof origin) migrants by a tauke (boss), who also (pondok)owned rooming-houses tinycramped neededto set themselves as and equipment up them withthecredit provides She pointsout thatthepondokdwellers"were usuallyboth mobiletraders. homeas beingin thecountryside to but permanent merely seekwork saw their remained" 1978a: (Jellinek, and where their wives,children fewpossessions all by interviewed Jellinek, butone 1). Of themorethan200 mobiletraders of is and that was a circular migrant, she suggests if herstudy representative in of of mobiletraders Jakarta there then must hundreds thousands circular be in to trading alone,in addition thosewhoworkas day migrants engaged petty and drivers, thelike. laborers, pedicab relates moveto Withrespect dailycommuting bulkof evidence to the hinterland. ment metropolitan Jakarta from immediate its Koentjaraningrat to
and circularmigrants. . . who came intothecityfromthe village traders petty

WAl

wP:\s~~W~t
NO

i.,\~~~~~~~~~~b

'4

rA~t~

'S

O-P

c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
*% l
_

__

,2"n < e A4 2~~~~~~~ 0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~
_ k

0 2

W,4~~~~~~ le~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

La.

@4 4 $@J L t_sX~~~~~

Graeme

J. Hugo

63

(1974, 1975)forexample, his study villagessouth Jakarta, in of of recognized movements thecapital,including to widespread nonpermanent dailycommuters whoareabsent onlyduring dayor for the twoto fivedaysand "temporary non-seasonal" migrants who are forcedto leave theirfamiliesfor several of As weeksor months. earlyas 1963Masrishowedthesignificance railcomfrom in muting Jakarta to Bogor, some 60 km to the south.The population bothcommuters permanent includes with Serpong, kmwestofJakarta, 45 jobs inJakarta many and and petty traders selllocal products who (fruit, vegetables, handicrafts) Jakarta at markets (Borkent-Niehof, 1974: 163). The factthat in to into Jakarta order commute many peoplearemoving theareasurrounding to thecityis evidenced thepreliminary in results the 1980 census,which of had showed that three the Jakarta annualpopkabupaten (regencies) adjoining ulation 4.04 percent, and growth ratesbetween 1971and 1980of 4.6 percent, 3.6 percent with national of 2.33 percent the compared rate (BiroPusatStatistik,1981:3). Preliminary results the1980censusindicated Jakarta's of that population was 6.5 million, representing annualgrowth an rateof 4 percent. This was lowerthanthe4.4 percent soinewhat during 1961-71 and certainly lowerthan mostcommentators predicted. this rateseverely Undoubtedly growth underof the estimates growth Jakarta's the functional repopulation: censuscriteria ferred earlier to wouldhaveensured most that circular and migrants commuters of in whospendmuch their livesandderive much their of income Jakarta were notactually enumerated that in citybutin their villageof origin.A widening circulation radius around has abouta reduction shortin Jakarta clearly brought distance movers thecity,at theveryminimum to within provthe permanent incesof West and Central Java,and a phenomenon similar that to observed by in Hawleyand others theWestern world,wherethe"lengthening commuting radius afforded theautomobile reduced amount migration by has the of neceslocal areas" (Boertlein Long, 1979: 23). and sary,at leastwithin It might argued thecircumstances be that in obtaining Jakarta-West Java werehighly to to specific that region conducive nonpermanent and mobilitya witha large and expanding sector particularly huge metropolis informal providing many opportunities flexible job with timecommitments, relawith to tively easyentry linked a reasonably and by cheap,efficient transport system mostpartsof theprovince. of However,a number studiesin otherpartsof of in Indonesia haveproduced evidenceof similar patterns mobility quitedifferent contexts. In the verydenselysettled Central Java-Yogyakarta region,Mantra's of out (1981)intensive study movement of two villagesidentified commuting of of He that (much itbybicycle)as themajorform mobility. explains nonperis thattheyhave manent migration of such significance amongtheJavanese severaldistinct conceptsof such movement: "nglaju is used forthosewho for travel a place butreturn to backto their homewithin sameday,nyinep the whostay another in forseveral before andmondok people place days returning forthosewho lodge in a destination for or community severalmonths years.

64

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

to Merantau refers those who go to anotherisland fora relativelylong period

buteventually return back to theorigin community. term The pindahis used forresidents who migrate another to place." Mudjiman (1978) has observed circular migration thecityof Surakarta theoperation a pondok-cento of and tered migration system similar that Jakarta. to in Within province Central the of Javathere appearto be twomainsystems nonpermanent of mobility (Zarkasi, inHugo andMantra, In thewestern thepatterns similar forthcoming). part are to thosedescribed earlier WestJava,withsubstantial in circular migration to Jakarta from suchareasas Kedu, Cilacap,Tegal,and Purwakarta. theeast, In however, bulk of the movement commuting the is and, to a lesserextent, circularmigration the major cities such as Semarang,Surakarta, to and Yogyakarta. Castles(1967: 53), forexample,notesthat bulkof thework the force in in employed kretek (hand-made factories Kudus and other cigarettes) citiesin Central East Javais madeup of womenwholive in thesurroundand ingrural on areasand commute longdistances (often foot).In East Java,perhaps themostmobilegroupare theMadurese,manyof whomhave moved, either or from smallislandnortheast Javato of permanently temporarily, their mainland East Java,other partsof Java,Kalimantan, Sulawesi. and The most mobile of all major ethnicgroupsin Indonesia are the AlMinangkabau people,whosehomeland theprovince WestSumatra. is of thoughthe highlyrestrictive migrant definition criteria meantthat many Minangkabau movers wouldnothavebeendesignated the migrants, 1971cen11 susshowed that percent all persons of born West in livedoutside the Sumatra province a further percent thoseresiding theprovince previand 12 of in had The centrifugal this ouslylivedin another province. tendencies within society areembodied their in of concept merantau, which beendefined "leaving has as one's cultural short longtime,withthe whether a for or territory voluntarily aimof earning livingor seeking a further knowledge experience, or normally withtheintention returning of home" (Naim, 1976: 150). Maude (1980) in a recent paper has suggested, the basis of his fieldwork severalWest on in Sumatra the of villages,that incidence Minangkabau migrants settling permanently outsideof their has homland increased. In southern Sumatra circular migration associatedwiththe coffee, is and with of in pepper, spiceharvests, largenumbers seasonalmigrants moving from relatively nearby or settlements from Bantenarea of WestJava.The the Bantenese one of many are in groups Indonesia whoengagein seasonalcircularmigration. Radial (1965: 34) has explained, As of "The culture theBanten like peopleis suchthat they usually to go merantau, to especially theLampung of sources income extra or incomeduring periodbefore the area,to seekother theharvest season beginsin Lampung.They go merantau in after planting Banten complete return theonsetoftheharvest is and with season." Thistype of seasonalcircular is in migration widespread Java.Franke(1972: 181),for how "literally of thousands landlessfamilies criss-cross example,described theJavanese the from westto east, and then countryside, following harvest for to returning thenextseasonas thepaddystarts yellowon thefields again."

Graeme

J. Hugo

65

In thefarnorth Sumatra, of Abdullah Hugo and Mantra, (in forthcomtheAcehnese, volumeoftemporary ing)showsa substantial migration among not too from whoseadat (customary dictates movers law) that should travel far their families.Siegel (1969) also showsthatmanyAcehnesemen leave the or to villageto engagein trade one kindor another, in pepper of growing the behind return leastoncea and at east.Thesemenleavetheir wivesandfamilies month. this the year,usuallyaround end of theMuslimfasting Increasingly circular migration appearsto focus on the major city of Medan in North Sumatra province. there beenlittle has research population into On theislandofKalimantan that movements significant. are mobility, itis apparent againnonpermanent yet thedayakpeople in the isolatedUpperKapuas area of West Studiesamong Kalimantan3 theKenyan and peopleofEastKalimantan (Colfer, 1981)revealed noteworthy outmovement, including practice seekingtemporary the of work the in of outside region theoilfields Brunei, pepper the of plantations Sarawak, orinthecoastalcitiesofEast andWest The Kalimantan, Sarawak,andBrunei. Banjaresepeopleof SouthKalimantan have a longhistory movement of outsidetheir homearea. Rambe(1977: 22) has discussed Banjarese the concept of which has to madam, traditionally meant leaveone's natalvillageandcrossthe sea with aimofincreasing the one's wealth within time a that period is notfixed thanone year).Johansyah Hugo and Mantra, forth(butis usuallylonger (in has indicated madamis usedmore that in coming) broadly contemporary South Kalimantan,encompassing both permanent and nonpermanent mobility. Rambe's(1977) study themobility thepeople of Alabio, locatedsome of of 200 kminland theBarito on residents River,showsthat many engagein circular seasonal migration associatedwithtrading, especiallydownriver the to provincial capitalof Banjarmasin. The islandof Sulawesiis thehomeland severalof Indonesia'smost of ethnic peripatetic groups.Abustam(in Hugo and Mantra,forthcoming) has of discussed primary the held concepts population mobility bythethree largest in ethnic groups theprovince SouthSulawesi-the Bugis,Makassarese, of and Torajan peoples. The Bugis are thedominant groupand have a verydistinct of For pattern mobility. severalcenturies have been seafarers, they "roaming thearchipelago searchof tradein accordance in with direction theprethe of to of vailing monsoon, returning Sulawesionlyfora fewmonths each yearto refit repair and their praus (sailingboats)" (Lineton,1975: 174). In theeighteenth coloniesin Kalimantan, Sulcentury beganestablishing they Southeast in and awesi,Maluku,East Nustenggara, morerecently Irian(New Guinea), Jambi and Whilethishas (eastern Sumatra), evenin Java(especially Jakarta). involved more-or-less permanent of the migration Bugissettlers, colonieshave also served basesfrom as which engageincircular to migration (Lineton, 1975; Amiroelah al., 1976; Suhartoko, et 1975). There is also substantial Bugis movement within SouthSulawesi, including seasonal circular bemigration tween ruralareas and large-scale circular between migration villagesand the movement provincial capitalcityof UjungPandang.Muchof thisrural-urban

66

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

as and the and also has a seasonalrhythm involves Makassarese Torajans well. of The seasonal migrations Makassaresefromtheirvillages in the poorest as sectoractivities to southern of theprovince engagein such informal part in sellinghave been studied detailby Forbes and pedicabdriving small-scale on villagesas earlyas midnight bicycles regularly leave their (1978). Peasants which or with agricultural produce handicrafts, heights piledtogravity-defying the homein thelateafterreturning during daybefore they in citymarkets sell the noon or evening.The Torajanpeople from denselypopulatednorthern to mobile.Whiletheyincreasingly travel Kaliare mountains also extremely movement within province. is the and mantan, Jakarta, Irian,thebulkoftheir substantial; muchof it is to Theirmigration Ujung Pandangis particularly in Several and involvesmoversengaging informal sectoractivities. circular and volumeof thismovement its important studies to testify the significant 1975;Surand (Abustam, economic social impacts uponthevillagesof origin forthcomin 1979; and Abustam, Hugo and Mantra, atha,1977; Mangunrai, ing). a In eastern (1979, 1981)has described widevariety Indonesia, Lucardie in of nonpermanent migrations the area of Halmaheraand adjacentislands mobility of (especiallyMakian) in the province Maluku. These rangefrom migrato and foodcultivation short-term sago gathering other associated with that the (1978) found tionassociated Rumbiak with wage labor.In IrianJaya, was capitalcityof Jayapura of peopleto theprovincial migration theGenyem of patterns circulaMuchof Irianhas longhad significant essentially circular. and of tionassociated with cultivation, trade, exchange suchgoodsas shifting to areas,especially However, commuting urban materials. knives building and townsand to areas of raw material and bothto migration Jayapura, circular with spread theprovthe of are especially importance, exploitation ofgrowing of and ince'sroad network proliferation publicminibuses. in Littleis knownaboutpopulation mobility East and WestNusatengIt of and patterns. complex significant there indications very are gara,although and of whether periods famine the wouldbe interesting know,forexample, to of foodshortage frequently inducenonperoccurin parts thoseprovinces that manent migrations. the the concerning The aim of thissection beento review literature has has within Indonesia.Attention been incidence nonpermanent of migration and a wide to movements seekor engagein work, focused onlyon population seek movesto visitrelatives, circular casual, adventitious rangeof somewhat and the like have been ignored.This has been go entertainment, shopping, of mobility donedeliberately establish direct to the significance nonpermanent herehave foreconomicdevelopment. patterns mobility The of summarized and in between place of residence resulted considerable physicalseparation have shown contexts Studiesin Western Indonesians. place of workformany how the availability comparatively systems of transport cheap and efficient distances over short havepermitted to commuting replacemigration relatively

Graeme

J. Hugo

67

has of (Holmes,1965;Lewan, 1969). The phenomenon commuting been conthat sidered be of such economicand social significance journey-to-work to are counpartof censusesin mostEuro-American questions now an accepted of separation place of usual resitries (Termote, 1975). However,substantial as regarded peculiarto dence and place of workhas been conventionally meansof transportation, in tradiwhile modern developed societies with their and locations tional identical society dwellings places of workwerein almost (Hagerstrand, 1962: 61). has Nevertheless, have seen not onlythatcommuting become of we of in worldbutthat proliferation nona immense significance thedeveloping has separation physical permanent mobility strategies madepossiblea greater Deand thanis possiblewith conventional commuting. ofdwelling workplace costsstill technology, andtravel time spite rapid the progress madeintransport masscommuting takeplace. Howcan limit distance overwhich severely the world,thereis growing ever,in Indonesia,as in muchof the non-Western of a distance evidence peopleliving beyond)thecon(and often great beyond by the enjoyed commuters by ventional commuting limit, gaining benefits yet in betweentheirhome area and theirplace of engaging circular migration work. work in many Indonesians The studies reviewed abovehave shownthat in their place. Quite earnings another oneplacebutconsume, spend,andinvest for of of apart from important the implications suchpatterns mobility social intoaccount planning in the this must change, significant phenomenon be taken of tell resources. whatcan demographers Yet investment scarcedevelopment in economic socialplanners and in that aboutmobility Indonesia willhelpthem in undertaken Intask?The conventional censusand large-scale surveys their statements long-distance, concerning donesiaallow us to makesome helpful little allowus very more-or-less thesesources However, permanent migration. the representative concerning scale, data scopeto provide detailed, nationally of discussion mobility under incidence, causes, and impact thenonpermanent of certain here.Seriousconsideration be givento including must types nonperis manent aboutwhichdirect informationsought mobility amongthevariables in national and surveys censusesin Indonesia. Explaining nonpermanent migration

incidence section indicate widespread the reviewed theprevious in The studies in thesestudies of nonpermanent mobility Indonesia.Moreover, population that evidenceto rejectthe argument the measureprovide amplefield-based in shouldnot be a priority migration mentand close studyof thismobility entail only permadevelopment research becausesocial changeand economic ruralto urbanareas. The of nentredistribution population, especiallyfrom between that mobility, especially Indonesian evidence suggests nonpermanent notonlyfor social and economic implications villageand city,has significant Given and themigrants involved also fortheir but placesof origin destination.

68

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

causingsuch of migration, whatare theforces theimportance nonpermanent the advanced explain accelto of several thetheories movement? thissection In in are and migration Indonesia of eration theincidence commuting circular in discussed.
Sociocultural explanations

migration become instituhas thattemporary have suggested Some writers so it in tionalized within someethnic groups Indonesia, that becomesthenorm their livesoutside to for peoplewithin group spendpartoftheir that particular especially thecase ofthe in has Thisexplanation beeninvoked villageofbirth. Naim (1974), who people of WestSumatra. Minangkabau highly peripatetic Indonesia,suggeststhat throughout has studiedMinangkabau communities and within society, led to the system mademalesmarginal has their matrilineal infor men-with social disapprobation the merantaubecoming norm young Abdullah if do to (Hadi, 1981).Similarly, curred they notconform thispattern kinof merantau as an effect thematrilineal (1971:6) explainsMinangkabau as of "The custom goingto therantau can be regarded an institushipsystem: of tionaloutlet thefrustrationsunmarried for youngmenwho lack individual To man,goingto the own society. a married and in responsibility rights their two expectations conflicting releasefrom families' rantau meansa temporary Maude family." and of pressed uponhimas a husband a member thematernal of they (1979) and Naim (1974: 347) bothfoundthatthe majority migrants with reasons for moving,but they (together gave economic interviewed merantauhas become of the Murad,1980:40) stress significance thefactthat people. amongsome Minangkabau institutionalized women Sumatra, of system theAcehneseof northern In thematrilocal whereas menare usually rice receive housesand sometimes landat marriage, die in their parents (Siegel, 1969:145). This without resources thevillageuntil for is encouragement youngmen to "go to the peripheral position a strong
East" (dja' utimo)or on therantau (leave one's home area), and manyengage

in city incircular to areas migration seekwork thepepper-growing ofthemajor factors are clearly ofMedanor setoff trade theEast. Whilesociocultural to in the shouldnotbe that rantau pattern influential here,Siegel (1969: 54) warns independent and romanticized thatif a mancould makea satisfactory overly do circular migrations not income wouldstayathome.Hence,theAcehnese he that ascribed to appear havethe"riteofpassage" characteristics aresometimes to Minangkabau and to migration verydefinitely some of theDayak circular of in (1978), in his study movement Kalimantan4 (Colfer,1981:13). Rumbiak of from that seeking sufficient explains to migration Genyem thecity Jayapura, menleaving was wealth meetbride-price to payments a majorcause of young In becomesa virtual thevillagetemporarily. somecases outmigration necessity forcertain youngmen. villagers, especially form whether nonperofa The institutionalization particular ofmobility, not manent permanent, or groupbut operates onlyon thescale of theethnic and local scale (Lucardie,1981;Vredenbregt, 1964; Hugo, also on a regional

Graeme

J. Hugo

69

1980). Particular ethnic groupsin Indonesia have longbeen characterized by whatis referred in the 1930 census (Volkstelling, to 1933-1936) as "wanderlust." is common find It to in neighboring economic villages,similar their andsocial conditions, evidencing one virsubstantial circulation theother and no to the tually mobility and from village. The institutionalizationmobility of within particular a groupoften asin sumesan element circularity, that of outmigration return and are migration and equallyencouraged. tradition institutionalization also encourage But can In stability lack of mobility. thislatter and it to respect is interesting notethe argument Mantra of (1981)thattheverystrong attachment theJavanese of to their natalvillagemakespermanent displacement anathema them,even in to thefaceofbleakeconomic circumstances. theother havereadily On hand,they adopted and commuting other nonpermanent ofmobility forms when newly the developedroad transportation systems have made thempossible. Lucardie (1981)laysgreat stress upontheemotional attachment theMakianese their of to homevillage,a feeling that encourages circularity rather thanpermanence in their mobility. As with most population mobility, nonpermanent migration Indonesia in takes to set place inresponse a complex ofinteracting of the forces, separation which be must inevitably somewhat artificial. cannot that nonperOne say the manent of in mobility particular is to groups Indonesia a response exclusively sociocultural of influences one typeor another, since manyother forcesare at someofthesociocultural factors clearly work.However, mentioned briefly hereare often overlooked. Some mayarguethatsocietalmobility are norms a merely reflection and determined economicnecessity political of, by, and of impositions one kindor another. such arguments to explaininterYet fail in regional intergroup and variations typesand levelsof mobility whereeconomicand politicalconditions appearto be relatively homogenous (Hugo, 1980). Sociocultural elements appearfrom writer's this village-level fieldwork in to experience Indonesia be too frequently overlooked an often as important element influencing population that mobility patterns. Equally,however, experience pointed theoverwhelming has to dominance economic of considerations notonlyin shaping volumeand direction mobility also in determinthe of but that ingwhether movement permanent temporary. is or In his pioneering workon circular migration towns,Elkan (1959, to that 1967)has suggested thepattern migration of between villageand cityin EastAfrica bestexplained terms economic is in of forces, rather by social than andcultural factors. nowdiscussseveral theeconomic-based We of arguments to in putforward explainnonpermanent population mobility Indonesia.
Economic explanations

income and utility Maximizing family The fromconsumption basic argument herewas putforward Elkan(1959, 1967)in his East African by and study by Java.One must, Hugo (1975,1978)forWest stress basic difference a however, between findings theAfrican the of studiesand thosein muchof Indonesia,

70

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

especially Java.It is clearthat rural in and on Indonesia, landshortage pressure In agricultural resources much are greater inmostofAfrica. Javalessthan than half rural the population ownsorhasdirect accessto sufficient land agricultural to obtain subsistence: mostofthenonpermanent migrant households couldnot earnsufficient incomesin either cityor thevillageto support the themselves andtheir or dependents. a Thus,circular migration commuting provides means forfamilies maximize to their incomes encouraging some members the of by household workin thevillageat timesof peak labordemandand to seek to workin the cityor elsewhere slowertimeswhile othermembers the at of household remain cope withlimited to labordemands.In addivillage-based tion,by leavingdependents thevillagehome,themigrants in (mostly men) in destination beeffectively reducethecostsof subsistence thecityor other mover putup with cause thesolitary can and less comfortable condicheaper tionsthanhis family would requireand thuscut personalcosts to a bare in minimum. Thus,by eamingin thecitybutspending thevillagethemigrant maximizes utility the gainedfrom consumption. The argument maximizing for family incomeandutility from consumptionappearsto gainconsiderable support from severalof thefieldwork-based studies reviewed earlier.It is particularly appropriate Java,whereland is in veryscarce,thedemands laborin thevillageare highly for seasonal,and a informal in complex sector thecitiesallowsrelatively easy access to employment (albeitforverylow incomeand often greatinvestment timeand for of the effort), alongwith flexible timecommitments demanded nonpermanent by of migrants.5 Elements thisargument have been putto thepresent writer by in fieldwork severalpartsof Indonesiaand the Philippines. migrants during One is constantly of reminded thehard-headed of economic rationality circular in mobility strategies situations whereincome-earning opportunities exare limited bothrural urban in tremely and sectors. Therecan be no doubtthat in many regions and for traditionally strong family villagetiesandthepreference a rural-based of lifeexert strong a way attraction themigrant, it is rare on but that choiceofnonpermanent permanent the over is migration an economically irrational response thesocial pull of thehomeplace. to A Riskaversion minimization secondaspectofElkan'seconomic or exof is planation circular movers considered to migration that urban employment offer in little of security old age or in times difficulty that was imperative so it to retain with rural contacts The West Javastudy also found to be this society. an important consideration amongmovers.A circulation strategy keeps the mover's in the options thevillagecompletely openso that riskofnotbeingable to eam subsistence reduced spreading between is it by villageandcityincome severalvillage-based can opportunities. Moreover, support systems be mobilized in times economic emotional or of and need-namely,thenuclear wider the of family, tradition gotong royong (mutual self-help) amongthewidervillage community, the traditionally and significant bapaklanakbuah (patron/ In relations. most is so client) cases, suchsupport notavailablein thecity, that

Graeme

J. Hugo

71

ifa migrant maintains stakein his villagehe does notcut himself from a off in whatis often onlyavailablesupport timesof direneed. the Again the risk aversionarguments have considerable applicability in knife and Java.ManyofJava'srural dwellers on thevery are edgeofexistence to to that simply nothavesufficient do surplus allowthem taketherisks permanent involves.A mobility thatminimizes migration often strategy suchrisks obviously moreappeal under has suchcircumstances. Mobility resulting fromtheuneven impact capitalismThe argument of in hereis founded politicaleconomy is not a polaroppositeto thetwo but it largely economic explanations advancedabove, although is sometimes preas thisargument population sees as sented such.Basically, mobility a response of to broader sociostructural changesassociatedwiththeunevenpenetration which has createdsubstantial capitalism, sectoral,class, and spatial inein qualities.In a seminalworkAmin(1974) has arguedthatlabormigration Africa be bestunderstood terms theeffects uneven can in of of capitalist expansion upon thosesocieties.It has been arguedthatcontemporary population in be reference theformative to mobility Indonesia cannot explained without of on influence colonialism thecountry's political, economic,and social systhe tems(Hugo 1975,Ch. 2; 1980;forthcoming). argument that fundaThe is mentally exploitative colonialsystem designed control local population to the in and expedite extraction raw materials the mostcost-efficient the of way of in shapedthe pattern mobility verydistinctive ways thathave yetto be altered. concentration investment areasofexploitative The in of activity (planfrom subsistence and its diversion the and tations, mines,ports,garrisons) areaswherethebulkof thepopulation semisubsistence agricultural lived;the the removal surplus the mother of to country, stifling development local of industrialization a fully and developedurban hierarchy; thecreation a and of dependent economy, centralized politicalsystem, and distinctive class stratification-allhave had a formative enduring and influence mobility on patterns. Forbes(1980) has shown that Amin'stheory be useful explaining can in the of circulation examining movement a smallgroupof petty by commodity producers UjungPandang, in SouthSulawesi.He argues there an importhat is tanttheoretical distinction and betweenmigration circulation concludes and tion capital,andalso . . . [helps]to slowtherateofchangeinIndonesia of by to If helping preserve petty commodity peasant and subsistence production. the wagelabour sector should expand, ifagriculture or should becomeincreasingly form mobility." of capitalized, then circulation well givewayto another may The latter pointconcerning increased capitalization agriculture some of has in immediacy contemporary Indonesiabecause it is clearthatmanyof Indonesia's,and especially Java's,rural areashavein thelastdecadeor so experienced the impactof major"modernizing" commercializing and changesin and agricultural technology practice (White,1979). The fullimpactof these
(Forbes, 1980: 21) thatcirculationis" . . . a resultof theincompletepenetra-

72

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

changeson population is mobility notyetapparent. However,it is clearthat manyof thesechangeshave had labor-displacing effects within agriculture of (Hugo, 1978) and couldpotentially have theeffect increasing outmigration from thoseareas. Whether suchmovement to be permanent, is nonpermanent, orboth notclearbutthere little is is evidence an impending of great expansion inurban wagelaborthat of wouldabsorb largenumbers permanent outmigrants displacedfrom areas. agricultural Forbes'sargument, then, that is nonpermanent migration boththereis sultandthecause of inequalities Indonesian in It society. playsa conservative roleinpreventing fullproletarianizationthepopulation. the of Thissameargument was advancedover60 yearsearlier Ranneft by (1916), who recognized three phasesin thedevelopment Indonesia's of the economy, lastbeinga periodof "capitalistic production" dating from around1860. Ranneft points out thedominance nonpermanent of forms mobility of thisphase in reduring sponseto thedistinctively different (from Europe)nature capitalist of penetrationexternally imposed uponthepopulation Java.He explicitly of states that thiscircular migration delaystheformation a proletariat; instead the of and of of emergence two social groups-an urban-based non-landowning proletariat anda smallfarming class-there is an undifferentiated involving group themselvesin boththecapitalist peasantmodesof production. and The theoretical in explanation briefly outlined thissection sometimes is seen as beingcompetitive withtheeconomicexplanations discussedearlier, butthepresent writer sees themmoreas complementary. first ecoThe two nomicexplanations based largely a micro-level are on approach ariseout and of intensive fieldwork close study individuals, and of and small households, communities. uneven The thatmigration cannot development theory suggests be explained without understanding macro-structural in society the forces and thecontextual elements the shaping pattern mobility. of Each of theexplanations throws somelight thecausesofmobility. on Hencean important priority wouldbe to exploreand establish linkages between forces the that operate at theindividual levelandinfluence or will whether households individuals move or stayand thebroader structural forces that constrain options the availableto them ultimately and of determine overall the Fieldwork and pattern movement. thestudies reviewed heredo indicate that there and are, as Gerold-Scheepers VanBinsbergen (1978: 28) suggest, factors addition theexternal in internal to forces capitalist of that penetration at leastpartially explainwhysome groups orsomeoftheir members It migrate morethan others. is atthemicro levelthat thetwoapproaches come together. knowlittle can We aboutthemicro-strucin tural setting whichpopulation movement occursor failsto occur.How do theexternal forces colonialpenetration theresultant of and and uneven distinctivepattern capitalist of themselves the level of the at penetration manifest or village,family, individual impelmigration a particular and of typeor enIn How do they courage stability? whatwaysare theseforces conperceived? strain rangeof mobility/stability the choicesopen to particular within groups in thevillage?These important have yetto be approached mobility questions in research Indonesia.

Graeme

J. Hugo

73

Transport development temporary and population One of the mobility most fundamental distinctions between and nonpermanent permanent forms of population mobility therelative is of significance thejourney between place of originand destination. mostpermanent semipermanent In and migrations, travel costs,timetaken, distance and traversed between origin destination and a element a mover'soverallcalculusin deciding in generally constituteminor whether notto migrate where.Severalwriters or and have pointed therelato tiveunimportance travel of costsin migration (e.g., Herrick, 1965) andto the factthat costsof thejourney the a usuallyconstitute one-time outlayand are nota continuing significant and element themover's in overall budget. This,of course,is notthecase with temporary forms population of mobility whenthe moveris repeatedly circulating between originand destination. journey The itself clearly occupiesa muchmorecentral position amongtheelements influencing movers and nonmovers, transport and costsare a constant signifiand cantitemin themover'sbudget.Clearlya prerequisite longand medium for distance mass commuting circular and migration the typesthatoccur in of Indonesia a widespread, is cheap,and efficient transportation network. a The lastdecadehas produced veritable in revolution theavailability of over publictransport mostof rural Indonesia(Hugo, 1981b).Therecan be no doubtthatthe extension roads and the proliferation vehiclesof many of of types, especially buses and minibuses, hitherto into isolatedruralareas have led to greatly increased spatialmobility a wide spectrum Indonesia's for of ruraldwellers.The precisenature the relationship of betweenthis striking in change transport and availability migration beenlittle has howinvestigated; the ever,it is clearthat transport has the revolution greatly facilitated concurrent upswing circular in migration commuting and (Hugo 1975, 1978, 1981b; Naim,1971;Mantra, Ranneft 1981).Muchearlier, showed (1916:61) similarly that in in innovation transport Indonesia in was influential producing changes in thetypesand levels of population mobility. In thissectionwe have summarized some of themajorarguments put forward explainnonpermanent to in migration Indonesia.We nowhave a substantial the bodyof empirical knowledge concerning causes of nonpermanent in As migration. has been suggested thediscussion, there now a need for is research directed onlytoward not of closerinvestigation theforces influencing nonpernmanent but mobility, also toward integrating whatwe already the of knowconcerning causes of thismobility a coherent the into theoretical framework. Implications of nonpermanent migration

A fewofthemoreimportant theoretical policyimplications and out arising of theprevious will discussion be briefly considmentioned. important One initial eration whether present is the is a highlevelof nonpermanent mobility simply transitional will ultimately replacedby permanent phasethat be of relocation movers urban to areasas social changeand economic many development pro-

74

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ceed. The general formulations Skeldon(1977) and Nelson (1978), based of predominantly LatinAmerican on experience, would suggest thatthisis the case, as does someoftheAfrican literature Binsbergen Meilink (Van and 1978: 11). The empirical evidencefrom Indonesia, however, somewhat is mixedin this respect. Maude(1980) suggests Minangkabau that outmigration West from Sumatra becoming is morepermanent time,andRambe's(1977) study over in SouthKalimantan points a transition nonpermanentpermanent to from to outmovement amongthe Banjareseof Alabio. On theother hand,manyof the other studies, especially thosebased in Java,found that great of the majority nonpermanent migrants have no intention shifting of permanently their to urban destinations. wouldbe premature infer It to from that this their migration willremain circular, mostmovers for have onlybeen engagedin circular migration a fewyears.At present seemsthat, many for it for Indonesian nonpermanent movers, their mobility notperceived a preliminary before is an as stage ultimate of permanent relocation themselves their and families. evidence The is that commuting circular and migration more are than a the simply means test to destination environment before settling there. Manytemporary movers Indoin nesiaexhibit strong apparently a and to commitment bilocality, long-term opting forthe combination activities both ruraland urbanareas thata of in nonpermanent migration strategy allows them. Another important consideration theimplications increased is of nonpermanent for migration broader social and economic changein Indonesia. Much ofthemigration and (both can permanent nonpermanent) be seenas a response to the substantial spatial,sectoral,and class inequalities within Indonesia. There beena longhistory concentration publicandprivate has of of investment and resource development activity-andhenceexpansion employment in opportunities-in particular localities (especially Jakarta, fewother a urban centers,and regionsof resource extraction such as plantations timber, and oil, coal, and mineral earareas). Muchof thenonpermanent migration described lierflows from areasin whichthere beenverylittle has and investment develtoward opment regions that have received far investment outof proportion to their shareofthenational population. Whileitis clearthat thesespatialsocioeconomic are in the inequalities a majorcausalfactor nonpermanent migration, critical remains in whether mobility turn an effect those that has on question it or them. inequalities and, if so, whether tendsto ameliorate exacerbate According one mainline of argument, transfer incomefrom to the of urban ruralareas, whichhave been starved investment, leadingto a to of is can concentrated particular on and flow areas,groups seasons,a smallnational redistribute resources and considerably ruralcommunities amongand within between ruraland urbanareas. Most neoclassicaleconomists would expect movements reducebothinefficiency inequality" to voluntary population and 1980:1). IndeedmostoftheIndonesian (Lipton, in studies reviewed thispaper refer a substantial to backflow money goods to theplace of origin a and as of of result nonpermanent In Javastudy, example(Hugo, for migration. theWest 1975, 1978), all temporary movers remitted moneyto their familiesand 81
reduction social and economic disparities:" . . .since netruralemigration in is

Graeme

J. Hugo

75

percent brought back goods. Amongcommuter an households, averageof 60 percent their of income was derived from remittances, whilecircular migrants' remittances accounted nearly for halftheir households' totalincomeon average. Nevertheless, much therecent of literature (Connell,1980;Lipton, 1980) has suggested theimpact money that of flows thevillageof origin small to is and in manycases even negative in whenconsidered netterms."The sparse evidencesuggests thatnet remittances quite smallrelative villageinare to come, are concentrated richer on to villagehouseholds unlikely suffer from capitalconstraints, tendto be little and used to finance investment, exceptin (1980) reviewof theremittance literature strong that emphasisis placed on monetary flows generated more-or-less by permanent migrants verylongand term migrants. as Fan and Stretton "Fromthepoint Yet, (1980:23) suggest, of viewof therural sector, remittances an benefit circular of represent important migration. Whilepermanent to migrants also sendfunds their may village,the amounts unlikely be as largeor as regular."The WestJavastudy are to certainly supports contention thenetremittance nonpermanent the that of migrants weresubstantially greater moresignificant thoseof permanent and than migrants. Moreover, studymakesclear that,undercurrent the conditions, the flowof remittances absolutely is to of critical the well-being manyvillage households. Fromtheperspective rural of be development, however, should it mentioned thebulkoftheseremittances usedtopurchase mundane that are the necessities life(food,clothing, of is etc.); and whilethere someinvestment in housing land,amounts and directed toward employment-generating enterprises are relatively small. A clearunderstanding theredistributive of impact nonpermanent of migration Indonesiamustawaitmoredetailedstudies remittances the in of and effect migration thevillage.Nevertheless, on of studiesin Javaand existing manypartsof the OuterIslands indicate thatwhenbothnonpermanent and permanent are migrants considered, netflowof remittances the tendsto be in favor thevillage,that seasonalor periodic of the loss oflaborfrom village the rarely in results anyloss of overallproductivity (e.g., Colfer,1981),and that manyindividuals and village communities dire consequences would suffer should their access to income-earning in centers opportunities citiesand other of investment curtailed anyway. in be Proponents theargument of the effects popuof supporting redistributive lationmobility also suggestthatthemovers will be changedby themselves their experiences their at if destination, especially it is an urban area, andthat thiswill lead them be innovators developmental to and leaderswhenthey return thevillage.Againthere little to is evidencefrom Indonesiato support a either are judgment way. It is clear thatreturning migrants generally highly in respected thevillagebecauseoftheir and greater experience that somehave taken is leadingrolesin their villages;yetthere little evidenceto suggest that have challenged traditional they the of structure thevillage. authority The secondmainline of argument the between regarding relationship
house-building. . ." (Lipton, 1980: 3). It is noticeable, however, in Lipton's

76

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

in of migration development Indonesiais thatthisform and nonpermanent and, of the pattern wideinequalities mobility acts,at best,to preserve current suggests thecirthat Thisargument thoseinequalities. at worst, exacerbate to of of concentration pattern spatial the cular mobility laborreinforces existing of can that placeslikeJakarta now areas.The fact investment a fewprivileged in having without has a wider areathan everbeenpossible, draw laborfrom much housing, and theirfamilieswithpermanent to provideall of the workers be the and facilities, utilities, so on, mayin fact encouraging schooling, health areas and the The destination in concentration investment thosecenters. of First, the power gaina doublebenefit. political economic and localclasseswith at can that supply laboris so plentiful wages and conditions be maintained of that is low levels; and there some evidence(e.g., Breman,1979) to suggest a area drawn from distant constitutemoredocileworkforce. a circular migrants etc.) to theprovi(via Second,theseclassesdo nothavetocontribute taxation, of etc.) forthefamilies the circular (permanent housing, sion of overheads migrants shouldbecome if at home.Moreover, circular migrants remain who village-based they ableto seekouttheir are fall ill orotherwise uponbad times, elites then, urban-based the respects, services. all ofthese In socialandwelfare costs. incur and their families whilethemovers derive benefits is In short, thatnonpermanent mobility not a thisargument suggests of solutionto village povertyand maldistribution satisfactory long-term wayto theagrimobility act in a similar may wealth. villageJava,circular In means by mechanisms described Geertz(1963) as another cultural involution to to justenough survive with opportunitiesearn whereby poorareprovided the for levelbutare givenlittle mobility at a baresubsistence opportunity vertical is only mobility really Thus,nonpermanent living conditions. to improve their Its verysuccessin a stop-gap that will maintain current inequalities. measure in reliefmay, in fact,be counterproductivethe longer providing temporary that from only strategy will ultimately the term attention because it diverts of decentralization investment assistthepoor in ruralareas-a fundamental toward rural and capitalawayfrom concentration citiesand areasof resource sector. areasand, in particular, peasantagricultural the in of Current migration Indonesialends at knowledge nonpermanent above. On theonehand, outlined to linesofargument leastpartial support both benefits from short-term certain economic perspective, there no doubt is that a their their families, to someextent and movers, accruetotheindividual usually most also migration likely nonpermanent On hand, villages origin. theother of and the widespread existing inequalities, and preserves perhapsexacerbates from long-term the of attention occurrence thismovement mayin factdivert in areasandpeasneedfora more investment total of resources rural equitable ant agriculture. for have significant implications policy.The imBothmajorarguments nonpershouldencourage is policymakers argument that plication thefirst of a manent effects-namely, net developmental mobility becauseof itspositive of flowof wealth perhaps and ideas from to villageand a reduction ruralcity urbaninequalities.

Graeme

J. Hugo

77

The secondargument quitedifferent has policyimplications. nonperIf manent migration factconsolidates in inequalities prevents formation and the of a significant urban-based proletariat, wouldappearpreferable encourit to age permanent migration and discouragenonpermanent migration. Lipton (1980: 3) has summed the position up succinctly: "Even if evidenceon the impact emigration rural of on areasleads to gloomy conclusions, does not this that, sincedevelopment almost certainly implies steady labourtransfers of out . agriculture. . governments shouldstopallocating investment incentives and in waysthat encourage excessive,premature therefore, and, disappointing labourtransfer. meanscorrecting This investment incentive and biases against theruralsector." It is clear thatwe do not yetknowenoughabouthow nonpermanent migration related thewidersocial and economiccontext whichit is is to in in and itsimpact incomedistribution spatialand on occurring Indonesia (both vertical). theabsenceof suchknowledge would be premature make In it to definitive pronouncements whatpolicyinitiatives, any,shouldbe taken. on if In a broader policycontext, however, is absolutely it critical that cognizancebe taken thescale, causes,and impact nonpermanent of of migration. Regionaldevelopment planners tendto takeaccountof permanent migration; but,as Fan and Stretton (1980: 21) havepointed out,ifa pattern nonpermaof nent migration of significance a region"thentheconsequences migrais in of tory flows maybe quitedifferent those from generally perceived researchers by andpolicymakers whotendto treat migration permanent." imporall as One tant is consequence theinterdependence between different sectors (especially theurbanand ruralsectors) created nonpermanent by migration. Policiesand in programs initiated theurbansectorwill often have unanticipated spin-off effects therural in sector thatare transmitted the through migrants (e.g., restrictions job opportunities on in open to circular migrants the city,as has in occurred Jakarta). inithe of Similarly, impact somepoliciesandprograms in tiated rural areasmaybe feltin cities. It is apparent thereare severalmajorgaps in our knowledge that and in of understanding nonpermanent mobility Indonesia-its scale, causes, conin sequences,and implications the broadersocial and economiccontext of national and regionaldevelopment change. Equally, it is apparent and that can our One demographers play a majorrole in increasing understanding. of sentithepioneers thestudy circulation, of of Mitchell (1978: 6-7) has stated ments echoedby manywho have followed himin thestudy thephenomeof thegreatdifficulties collecting in suitabledata to carry adequatetheoretical formulations." the The studies either subreviewed herecan leave no doubtregarding stantial and social scale of impermanent mobility Indonesia itseconomic in or It significance. behoovesus to developa strategy obtaining estimates sure for
intractable to non: ". . . the topic has, in my opinion, remained remarkably thorough going analysis. . . . Part of thisanalyticalrecalcitrance derives from mean that . . . migration should be impeded. No; the implicationsare rather

78

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ofthevolume, of location, and characteristicsthisform direction, structural of mobility. inevitably This meansincorporating appropriate questions thecenin sus and large-scale A national samplesurveys. number possibilities of immediately present themselves. first during fullcensuscount ask both The is the to a person's usualplaceofresidence hisplace ofresidence thenight the and on of census.Thisde facto/de comparison carried with jure was out somesuccessin the 1930 Indonesian census(Volkstelling, 1933-1936),enabling colonial the censustakers createa special category "personstemporarily to of present." Thisis a particularly important priority. addition, wouldbe highly In it desirable to include workplace a in it couldnot question thecensus.Unfortunately be included thefullcount, in which restricted four fivequestions, is to and or wouldhave to be incorporated the samplecensus.6 Sample surveys in that adoptcluster-type sampling procedures createdifficulties because census-defined is movement nota completely ubiquitous population characteristic and movers tendto be concentrated particular in in areas,leadingto problems inthe to The flating samplefigures thetotalpopulation. designoftheworkplace and thetabulation question research frequent and plan wouldneed extensive testing. The questionwould need to be appliedto all occupations held by individuals throughout yearprior enumeration, takeaccountof the the to to highincidence multiple of job-holding Indonesia in (especially amongcircular migrants commuters) seasonality circular and and in movements. Censusofficials may understandably blanchat theprospect constructing of workplace/ usualplace ofliving matrices sucha hugepopulation for in living sucha complexanddisparate country Indonesia. as However, several appropriate collapsing procedures applied to enumeration unitsin tabulations would greatly reducethesize of thematrices needed.7 Manyother areasinwhich research muchneeded is havebeenalludedto in thispaper.In particular, further investigation required thecause and is into effect relationships between nonpermanent mobility (1) widersocial and and economic in patterns Indonesian society, spatial,sectoral, social ine(2) and qualities, and (3) development. Thereis also a need forfurther testing the of limited theoretical explanations nonpermanent of mobility forintegrating and them a moresatisfactory useful into and framework. Moreresearch should also be directed toward identifying clarifying policyimplications this and the of form mobility. of

Notes
This is a revisedversion a paperpresented tionalUniversity, support the preparaof for in to thesessionon "FormsofImpermanent Mo- tionof thispaper. bility: Emerging Insights" the1981meeting at 1 The literature replete of the PopulationAssociationof America, is with pronounceon of Washington, The author grateful the ments theimmobility Java'sinhabitants, D.C. is to based on census and traditional Department of Demography, Australian Nalarge-scale

Graeme

J. Hugo

79

4 Naim (1976) speaks of some Dayak evidence(e.g., McNicoll, 1968: 33survey mento engagein ciryoung requiring and 1973;Naim,1974;Fryer Jack- groups 39; Bryant, theyare tatreturn on of son, 1977:18). For a fullcritique suchpro- cularmigration; their see nouncements Hugo (1975: 234-238). tooed to indicate that they have attained regions used manhood. 2 The migration-defining is sector,in turn, 5 The urbaninformal not which onlyarevery were 26 provinces, the in but able to adjustto theseseasonalfluctuations and areal terms largein bothpopulation in because of fluctuations in size widely their andshape.Field- labor availability also vary permanent peak labordemandacross ruralareas due to thatintraprovincial worksuggests microrainfall, in local variations irrigation, migrants outnumbertheir interprovincial of and varieties riceplanted. in detected thecensusby at least climate, counterparts fiveto one (Hugo, 1981a). applied in the 6 The samplingfraction a Thecensuswas essentially de jurecount, second stage of the 1980 census variedbehad tweendifferent a andto be classified a migrant, mover as typesof areas, but averaged for to havebeen at his destination at leastsix approximatelypercent households. of 5 of For months. a discussion thetimecriteria of 7 Simple breakdowns workplacesas migrants itsimplications and used in defining kaother the beingwithin same kabupaten, see Hugo (1981a). bupaten in the province,otherkotamadya 3 Personal communicationfrom Dr. otherprovin the province, Studies, (municipalities) for MichaelDove, Center Population or inces (consideredseparately in groups) IndoYogyakarta, Gadjah Mada University, wouldsuffice.
nesia.

References Sumatra in T., Abdullah, 1971.Schooland Politics:TheKaumMuda Movement West Series. IndonesiaProject, Monograph New York:CornellModern 1927-1933. Sepatu Toraja Di UjungPandang (Torajanshoe reM. Abustam, I., 1975. Tukang Ilmu-Ilmu Penelitian PusatLatihan in pairers UjungPandang).UjungPandang: Sosial. UniverAfrica.London:Oxford in Migrations Western Amin,S. (ed.), 1974.Modern sityPress. Penduduk PropinsiSulawesi B. Amiroelah, M. et al., 1976. Masalah Perpindahan of in problem theprovince SouthSulawesi).UjungPanmigration Selatan (The University. dang:Hasanuddin Dari SensusPenduduk Penduduk Jumlah 1981.AngkaSementara BiroPusatStatistik, the from 1980census).Jakarta: of figures thetotalpopulation 1980 (Preliminary Mimeo. Biro PusatStatistik. of comparisons therateof C. Boertlein, G., and L. H. Long, 1979. "International to methods."Paperpresented theAnof three Application migration: internal April. of Association America.Philadelphia, of nual Meeting thePopulation WestJava:A baselinestudy."Main A., Borkent-Niehof, 1974. "Fertility Serpong, Indonesia1: 162-168. jalah Demografi of The crushing capitalism: and J., Breman, 1979. "Seasonal migration co-operative of cane and of labourby the sugarfactories Bardol, SouthGujarat."Part2. of Journal PeasantStudies6, no. 2: 168-209. cities." Mimeo. Indonesian in associations three E. Bruner, M., 1972. "Batakethnic Java: in resources Central and pressure agricultural N. Bryant, A., 1973. "Population StateUniversity. of The dynamics change." Ph.D. Thesis,Michigan

80

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Castles,L., 1967.Religion, PoliticsandEconomic in Behavior Java: TheKudusCigaAsia Studies. rette Southeast Industry. New Haven: Yale University Colfer, J., 1981."On circular C. migration: Fromthedistaff side." Mimeo. Connell,J., 1980. "Remittances ruraldevelopment: and Migration, dependency and inequality the SouthPacific." Paperpresented the Development in to Studies CentreConference Population on and Development. Mobility The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra, October. Elkan,W., 1959. "Migrant laborin Africa: economist's An approach." American EconomicReview49: 188-197. , 1967. "Circular migration thegrowth townsin East Africa."Internaand of tionalLabor Review96: 581-589. Fan, Y K., and A. Stretton, 1980. "Circular migration Southeast in Asia: Some theoretical explanations." Department Economics,University Southern of of California, Research Papers,no. 8002. Forbes,D., 1978. "Urban-rural interdependence: trishaw The drivers UjungPanof dang." In Food, Shelter and Transport Southeast in Asia and thePacific,ed. P. J.Rimmer al. Canberra: Australian et The National Research School University, of PacificStudies,Department HumanGeography. of , 1980. "Mobility uneven and in A development Indonesia: critique explanaof tionsofmigration circulation." and Paperpresented theDevelopment to Studies CentreConference Population on and Development. Mobility The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra, October. Fox, J. J., 1977. Harvestof the Palm: Ecological Change in EasternIndonesia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Franke, 1972. "The greenrevolution a Javanese R., in village." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University. D. Fryer, W., and J. C. Jackson, 1977.Indonesia.London:Ernest Benn. Geertz,C., 1963. Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia.Berkeley: of Press. University California Gerold-Scheepers, andW. M. J. VanBinsbergen, T., 1978. "Marxist nonMarxist and approaches migration Tropical to in Africa."African 1: Perspectives 21-36. T., Goantiang, 1968. "Some noteson internal in migration Indonesia."International 6: Migration 39-48. Hadi, A. S., 1981."Population in mobility NegriSembilan, Malaysia." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Flinders University SouthAustralia, of Adelaide. Hagerstrand, 1962. "Geographic T., measurements migration: of Swedish data."Monaco Colloquia in HumanScience 16: 61-83. Herrick,B. H., 1965. Urban Migrationand Economic Development Chile. in MIT Press. Cambridge: Holmes, J. H., 1965. "The suburbanization the Cessnock coalfieldtowns: of 1954-64." Australian Geographical Studies3: 105-128. Hugo, G. J., 1975. "Population mobility WestJava,Indonesia."Ph.D. Thesis, in Department Demography, Australian of The NationalUniversity, Canberra. , 1978.Population Mobility West in Java. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University Press. of movement 1971.Migration and from to , 1979. "Patterns population to Ja" karta. The impact migration villages Java. Migration Development of on in and inSoutheast Asia: A Demographic Perspective, R. J. Pryor. ed. Kuala Lampur: Oxford University Press. " , 1980. "Population movements Indonesia in during colonialperiod. Indothe

Graeme

J. Hugo

81

nesia: Australian ed. Perspectives, J. J. Fox, R. G. Garnaut, T. McCawley, P. andJ.A. C. Mackie.Canberra: Australian National University Research School of PacificStudies. , 1981a."Sourcesof internal migration in Indonesia: data Theirpotential and limitations." Mimeo. , 1981b."Road transport, population mobility development Indonesia." and in Population Mobility Development: and Southeast Asia and thePacific, G. W. ed. Jones H. V. Richter. and Canberra: Australian National University Development StudiesCentre Monograph 27. no. ties, and social , 1981c."Village-community villagenorms villageand ethnic " networks migration in decisionmaking. InMigration DecisionMaking,ed. G. F. DeJongand R. W. Gardner. New York:Pergamon. "New conceptual , forthcoming. in approaches migration thecontext urto of A based on Indonesian In banization: discussion Moveexperience." Population Their and Functions Urbanization Development, P. A. ments: Forms in and ed. Morrison. Liege: International UnionfortheScientific Studyof Population. , andI. B. Mantra in (eds.), forthcoming. Population Mobility Indonesia:Proceedings a Workshop. of Yogyakarta: Population Institute, GadjahMada University. Institute RuralandRegional of Studies(IRRS), 1977.Seasonal Migrants Commuand tersin Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: IRRS, Gadjah Mada University. In and Jellinek, 1978a. "The Ponkok L., system circular migration." The Lifeof the Poor in Indonesian Asian Studies,MonashUniverCities. Center Southeast of sity. " ,1978b. "Circular migration thePondok and dwelling system. In Food, Shelterand Transport Southeast in Asia and thePacific,ed. P. J. Rimmer al. et Canberra: The Australian NationalUniversity, of Department HumanGeograSchool of PacificStudies. phy,Research Jones,G. W., 1977. The Population NorthSulawesi. Yogyakarta: of Gadjah Mada Press. University Kasden,L., 1970. "Shortterm migration a MiddleEastern in religio-ethnic community."In Migration Anthropology, R. F. Spencer.Seattle: and ed. University of Press. Washington 1974. "MobilitasPenduduk Koentjaraningrat, SekitarJakarta" (Population mobility around Jakarta). Masyarakat Indonesia1, no. 2. " ,1975. "Population in mobility villages around Jakarta.Bulletin Indonesian of EconomicStudies11,no. 2: 108-119. Lewan,N., 1969. "Hiddenurbanization Sweden."Tijdschrift Economische in voor en 60: Sociale Geografle 93-97. Lightfoot, 1980. "Circular migration modernization Northeast and in Thailand." P., of University Hull. Mimeo. Lineton, 1975. "Pasompe' Ugi': Bugis migrants wanderers." J., and Archipel10: 173-201. on from The Lipton, M., 1980. "Migration rural areasofpoorcountries: impact rural and productivity incomedistribution." World Development no. 1: 1-24. 8, Lucardie, R. E. 1979."The Makianese: G. Preliminary remarks theanthropological on of study a migration-oriented in theMoluccas." Mimeo. people , 1981."The geographical and traditions mobility theMakianese: of Migratory resettlement." Mimeo. McNicoll,G. 1968. "Internal in migration Indonesia."Indonesia5: 29-92.

82

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Mangunrai, 1979.MigranTorajaDi Kotamadya H., UjungPandang(Torajan migrants in UjungPandang).UjungPandang: Hasanuddin University. Mantra, B., 1978. "Population I. movement wetricecommunities: case study in A of twoDukuhin Yogyakarta SpecialRegion."Ph.D. Thesis,University Hawaii. of Movement Central in Java. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada Uni, 1981.Population versity Press. Masri,M., 1963. "Bogorsebagaikotaforensa kereta api." Dissertation Geography. in IKIP Bandung. Maude, A. M., 1979. "Intervillage differences outmigration WestSumatra." in in 49: Journal Tropical of Geography 41-54. , 1980. "How circular Minangkabau is migration?" Indonesian Journal Geof ography no. 37: 1-12. 9, Meilink,H. A., 1978. "Some economicinterpretationsmigration." of African Perspectives1: 51-66. Mitchell, C., 1978. "Wage labormobility circulation: sociologicalperspecA J. as tive." Paperpresented theInternational to Seminar theCrossCultural on Study of Circulation, East-West Center, Honolulu,April. Mudjiman, 1978. "Consequences recurrent H., of movement thefamily theplace on at A of origin: comparative case study two villagesaroundSurakarta." of MimResearch Sebelas Maret,Surakarta. eographed Proposal.Universitas Murad,A., 1980.Merantau:Outmigration a Matrilineal in Society West of Sumatra. Canberra: The Australian NationalUniversity, of Department Demography. Naim, M., 1971. "Merantau: Causes and effects Minangkabau of voluntary migration." Institute Southeast of Asian Studies,Singapore, OccasionalPapers,5. , 1974. "Merantau: Ph.D. Dissertation, Minangkabau voluntary migration." of University Singapore. , 1976. "Voluntary in migration Indonesia."In Internal Migration: The New ed. and World theThird and World, A. H. Richmond D. Kubat.London:Sage. Nelson,J., 1978. "Policyaspectsof temporary permanent and in cityward migration countries." and developing Paperpresented IUSSP Committee Migration to on on Urbanization to of Meeting New Conceptual Approaches theStudy Migration in theContext Urbanization. of Bellagio,Italy,July. F. Ormeling, J., 1956.The Timor A Problem: Geographical Interpretation an Unof J. and Island. Jakarta Groningen: B. Wolters. derdeveloped Radial,M., 1965.RencanaKota Serang(Serangcityplan). Jakarta: Direktorat PerencanaanKota Dan Daerah,Departmen CiptaKaryaDan Konstruksi. Rambe,A. 1977.Urbanisasi OrangAlabioDi Banjarmasin (Urbanization theAlaof bio in Banjarmasin). Banjarmasin: Faculty Economics, of Lambung Mangkurat University. Ranneft, M., 1916.Volksverplaatsing Java.Tijdschrift hetBinnenlandsch J. op voor 49: Bestuur 59-87, 165-184. M., 1979. UrbanisasiOrang Genyem Kota Jayapura(Urbanization of Rumbiak, Di theGenyem Jayapura). in Abe Jayapura: Universitas Cenderawasih. Rusli,S., 1978. "Inter-rural in The case of West migration circulation Indonesia: and Java." Unpublished M.A. Thesis,Development Studies Centre, The Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra. Siegel,J. T., 1969. The Rope of God. Berkeley: of Press. University California R., of in Skeldon, 1977. "The evolution migration urbanization Peru." patterns during Review67: 394-411. Geographical

Graeme

J. Hugo

83

A. Suharso, Speare,H. R. Redmana, and I. Husin,1976.Rural-Urban Migration in Indonesia.Jakarta: NationalInstitute Economicand Social Research of (LEKNAS-LIPI). Suhartoko, 1975.Merantau Bagi OrangWajo. UjungPandang:PusatLatihan PenelitianIlmu-Ilmu Sosial. Universitas Hasanuddin. I. Pusat Suratha, G. W., 1977.Tukang Mebel TorajaUjungPandang.UjungPandang: LatihanPenelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial. Universitas Hasanuddin. Temple 1975. "Migration Jakarta." G., to Bulletin Indonesian of Economic Studies11, no. 1: 76-81. In of Termote, 1975. "The measurement commuting." The Measurement UrM., of ed. and D. Sly. banization and Projection UrbanPopulation, S. Goldstein of Liege: Ordina. in as M. of Titus, J.,1978a."Inter-regional migration Indonesia a reflection socialand 69, regional inequalities." Tijdschrift Economische Sociale Geografie voor en no. 4: 194-204. , 1978b.MigrasiAntar Daerah Di IndonesiaSebagai Cerminan Ketimpangan Dan Sosial. Yogyakarta: Regional Population Institute, GadjahMada University Translation Seriesno. C12. 1978. "Migration thetransformaand VanBinsbergen, M. J.,and H. A. Meilink, W. 1: tionof modemAfrican society: Introduction." African Perspectives 7-20. van Volkstelling (Population Census),1933-1936. Definitieve Uitkomsten de Volkstellvan en ing1930. Batavia:Department Landbouw, Nijverheid Handel(8 vols.). J., tot Vredenbregt, 1964. "Bawean migrations." Bijdragen de Taal-, Land- en Volk120: 109-139. enkunde measureB., and White, 1979. "Political aspectsofpoverty, income distribution their ment:Some examplesfrom rural Java."Development Change 10: 91-114. and D., Terbesar Kebutuhan Kota." Pedoman Rakyat Yunus, 1979. " 'Pagandeng' Suplaier 33, no. 33: 1-2. W., of transition." Review Zelinsky, 1971."The hypothesis themobility Geographical 41, no. 2: 219-249.