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: 16/03/2013 02:26
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

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Circular Migration
in Indonesia

Graeme J. Hugo

A substantial
and growingbody of fieldevidencepoints
not only to the widespreadincidence,but also to the social and economic
withinIndoand commuting
of circulation,
seasonalmigration,
significance
in large-scaledehowever,goes unrecorded
nesia. The bulkof thismobility,
adoptthefamiliarcriteria
mographicsurveysand censuses,whichroutinely
and questionsdesignedto detectpredominantly
longerdistance,more-or-less
permanent
changesin usualplace ofresidence.The low levelsofthelattertype
the
of movement
revealedby thesecensusesand surveysappearto confirm
theinhabistereotyping
of mostIndonesians(and in particular
conventional
tantsof Java)as immobilepeasantswho are born,live, and die in thesame
beyondtheconfinesof theirnatalvillage.Although
house,scarcelytraveling
migration
detectedbythecensusis
theinterprovincial,
more-or-less
permanent
butone subsetoftotalpopulation
mobility
inIndonesia,in theabsenceofmore
micensus-defined
national(or even regional)level statistics
comprehensive
in theliterature.1
have becomesynonymous
grationand populationmobility
studiescarried
of a numberof intensive
Thispaperreviewsthefindings
population
nonpermanent
outin severalpartsofIndonesiato establishwhether
significance
of social, economic,and demographic
mobility
is a phenomenon
thewidein Indonesia.Evidencefroma largenumberofsurveysdemonstrates
in
and
Indonesia
of temporary
formsofpopulationmobility
spreadoccurrence
thathavebeenput
takes.The majorexplanations
themanyformsthatmobility
levels of
Accelerating
forward
to explainthismobilityare thensummarized.
for
implications
havebothshort-andlong-term
temporary
populationmobility
of wealthwithinIndonesia.A number
achievinga moreequitabledistribution
oftheseissuesareraisedintheconcluding
sectionofthispaper.Severaldirecin which
areidentified
mobility
tionsin continuing
researchintononpermanent
of
to theunderstanding
contribution
could make a significant
demographers
changestakingplace withinIndonesiansociety.
fundamental
POPULATION

AND

DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW

8, NO.

1 (MARCH

1982)

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

59

60

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

It is noteasyto distinguish
betweenpermanent
andnonpermanent
populationmobility.Zelinsky(1971: 225-226) definesconventional
migration
as
or semi-permanent
"anypermanent
as "a
changeofresidence"andcirculation
greatvarietyofmovements
usuallyshortterm,repetitive
or cyclicalin nature,
butall havingin commonthelackof anydeclaredintention
of a permanent
or
longlastingchangein residence."A further
distinction
can be madebetween
commuting,
definedas regulartraveloutsidethevillage(usuallyforworkor
education)forfrom6 to 24 hours,andcircularmigration,
continuous
involving
but temporary
have
absences of greaterthanone day. Some fieldworkers
adoptedupperthresholds
of continuous
absenceof 6 monthsor 12 monthsto
distinguish
betweencircularand permanent
migration.
However,theseworkershave also suggestedthatmuchessentially
circularmobility
was definedas
permanent
byadoptingsuchabsolutecriteria.Clearly,thedifference
lies in the
intentions
of individualsand thenatureand level of theircommitment
to particularplaces, and suchphenomenadefyattempts
to establishabsolutetemcan be readily
poralcriteria.Despitetheseproblems,thebulkof movements
distinguished
as permanent
or temporary.
In Indonesiathecensusand mostconventional
large-scalesurveysare
designedto systematically
excludethebulkof nonpermanent
This
movement.
makesit impossibleto furnish
accuratenationalor provincialestimatesof the
extentofcommuting
andcircularmigration.
Some policymakers
anddemographersmaketheavailability
of suchestimatesthesine qua non of thesignificance of a demographic
phenomenon.
Clearlyit is important
to obtainthese
estimates,
butthefactthatnoneare availablehereis morea reflection
of the
inappropriateness
of currentdata collectionmethodsto Indonesia'sdemographic,social,andeconomicrealitythanoftheinsignificance
ofthephenomenon.Accordingly
theaimofthefirst
sectionis to demonstrate
howthebulkof
nonpermanent
mobility
is missedin conventional
data collectionand to draw
uponthescattered
case studyevidenceto establishthat,although
nationalestimatesof thevolumeof nonpermanent
mobilityare notavailable,it is a phenomenonof demonstrable
significance.
Evidence of widespread
mobility

nonpermanent

In the1971censussome7.3 millionIndonesians,or 6.4 percentofthepopulation,had lived at some timeoutsidetheirprovinceof presentresidenceand

hence were classifiedas "migrants."However,as has been demonstrated
elsewhere(Hugo, 1978: 10-12)thecriteria
in thatcenused to definemigrants
sus excludedmostshort-distance
and short-term
movers.2The extentto which
thetemporal
criteriaadoptedin thecensusexcludedpopulationmovements
of
significance
can be gaugedfromfieldsurveyevidence.A studyin 14WestJava
villagesthatattempted
to detectall permanent
and nonpermanent
movesassociatedwithworkand formaleducationfoundthatonlyone-third
of all such
movesmetthecensusmigration
timecriteria(Hugo, 1975, 1978). Moreover,

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

61

J. Hugo

in thesurveyvillagesbetween76 and 98 percentof themoverswho metthe

movedwithintheprovinceof WestJavaandhencedidnot
censustimecriteria
as faras thecensuswas concernedbecausetheydid not
qualifyas migrants
region.
defining
of a censusmigration
crosstheboundary
on populationmovementfromvilThe WestJavastudyconcentrated
centersof Jakartaand Bandung(see map).
lages to the majormetropolitan
as havingmawereidentified
mobility
typesof nonpermanent
Severaldistinct
Theseincludedcommuting
overdistancesof up to 50 km,to
jor significance.
to engage in
or irregularly
urban-basedemployment
participate
in full-time
is circularmigrajobs. More distinctive
to village-based
worksupplementary
tion,wherebymoversdo notchangetheirusual place of residencein thevilforperiodslongerthana singleday.
lage butareabsentat an urbandestination
employment
full-time
can be associatedwithpermanent
Againsuchmovement
workin the informal
butusuallyinvolvesnonpermanent
at the destination,
somevillageusuallymaintain
sectoroftheurbaneconomy.Circularmigrants
withwhichtheymigrateis determined
and thefrequency
basedemployment,
it, theirearningsat the
by thedistanceinvolvedand thecosts of traversing
andtheavailability
ofworkin thehomevillage.Much,butbyno
destination,
duringtheextendedperiods
meansall, circularmobility
is seasonal,occurring
andharvesting
riceduringthewet
oflimitedjob opportunity
betweenplanting
long-distance
season and duringthe dryseason. Therewas also significant
fromWestJavato theOuterIslandsto workon plantations
circularmigration
or oil/mineral
projects,oftenundercontractand involvingabdevelopment
sencesofup to twoyears.Rusli(1978) showsthatthesesametypesof nonperin migration
betweenruralareas in
manentmovementwere of significance
of thefamilieswereat least
WestJava.In the14 studyvillagesthree-quarters
and
on incomesourcesoutsidethevillage,mostlyin Jakarta
partlydependent
Bandung.
have pointedclearlyto theimporstudiesin Jakarta
Community-based
Jellinek
(1978a,b),in
in thatcity.In particular
migrants
tanceofnonpermanent
has describedthepondoksystemwhereby
in Jakarta,
herstudyofpettytraders
in
circularmigrants
(usuallyfromthesame regionof origin)clustertogether
a
who
also
by
tauke
(boss),
(pondok)owned
tinycrampedrooming-houses
providesthemwiththecreditand equipmentneededto set themselvesup as
mobiletraders.She pointsout thatthepondokdwellers"were usuallyboth
pettytradersand circularmigrants. . . who came intothecityfromthe village

homeas beingin thecountryside

merelyto seekworkbutsaw theirpermanent
wheretheirwives,childrenand fewpossessionsremained"(Jellinek,1978a:
by Jellinek,all butone
1). Of themorethan200 mobiletradersinterviewed
of
and she suggeststhatif herstudyis representative
was a circularmigrant,
of thousandsof circular
mobiletradersin Jakarta
thentheremustbe hundreds
migrants
engagedin pettytradingalone,in additionto thosewhoworkas day
laborers,pedicabdrivers,and thelike.
Withrespectto dailycommuting
thebulkof evidencerelatesto movementto metropolitan
Jakarta
fromits immediatehinterland.
Koentjaraningrat

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WAl

wP:\s~~W~t

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

'4

rA~t~

NO

'S

c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

O-P

*% l

__

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

0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~

_
k

La.

@4 4 $@
t_sX~~~~~
JL

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

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

63

(1974, 1975)forexample,in his studyof villagessouthof Jakarta,

recognized
movements
to thecapital,includingdailycommuwidespreadnonpermanent
terswhoareabsentonlyduringthedayor fortwoto fivedaysand "temporary
non-seasonal"migrantswho are forcedto leave theirfamiliesfor several
ofrailcomweeksor months.As earlyas 1963Masrishowedthesignificance
fromBogor, some 60 km to the south.The populationin
mutingto Jakarta
includesbothcommuters
withpermanent
Serpong,45 kmwestofJakarta,
jobs
inJakarta
andmanypettytraders
whoselllocal products
(fruit,
vegetables,and
handicrafts)
at Jakartamarkets(Borkent-Niehof,
1974: 163). The factthat
in orderto commute
Jakarta
manypeoplearemovingintotheareasurrounding
to thecityis evidencedin thepreliminary
resultsof the 1980 census,which
had annualpopshowedthatthethreekabupaten(regencies)adjoiningJakarta
ulationgrowthratesbetween1971and 1980of 4.6 percent,4.04 percent,and
3.6 percentcomparedwiththenationalrateof 2.33 percent(BiroPusatStatistik,1981:3).
Preliminary
resultsofthe1980censusindicatedthatJakarta's
population
was 6.5 million,representing
an annualgrowthrateof 4 percent.This was
lowerthanthe4.4 percentduring1961-71and certainly
soinewhat
lowerthan
mostcommentators
predicted.Undoubtedly
thisgrowthrateseverelyunderestimates
thegrowthof Jakarta's
functional
population:thecensuscriteriareferred
toearlierwouldhaveensuredthatmostcircularmigrants
andcommuters
whospendmuchoftheirlivesandderivemuchoftheirincomeinJakarta
were
notactuallyenumerated
in thatcitybutin theirvillageof origin.A widening
circulation
radiusaroundJakarta
has clearlybrought
abouta reduction
in shortdistancepermanent
moversto thecity,at theveryminimum
withintheprovincesof Westand CentralJava,and a phenomenon
similarto thatobservedby
Hawleyand othersin theWestern
world,wherethe"lengthening
commuting
radiusafforded
bytheautomobilehas reducedtheamountof migration
necessary,at leastwithinlocal areas" (Boertleinand Long, 1979: 23).
It mightbe arguedthatthecircumstances
in Jakarta-West
obtaining
Java
werehighlyspecificto thatregionand conduciveto nonpermanent
mobilitya huge metropoliswitha large and expandinginformalsector
particularly
providing
manyjob opportunities
withflexibletimecommitments,
withrelativelyeasyentry
andlinkedbya reasonably
cheap,efficient
transport
systemto
mostpartsof theprovince.However,a numberof studiesin otherpartsof
of mobility
in quitedifIndonesiahaveproducedevidenceof similarpatterns
ferentcontexts.
In the verydenselysettledCentralJava-Yogyakarta
region,Mantra's
out of two villagesidentified
(1981)intensivestudyof movement
commuting
He explainsthatnonper(muchof itbybicycle)as themajorformofmobility.
is of such significance
manentmigration
amongtheJavanesethattheyhave
severaldistinctconceptsof such movement:"nglaju is used forthosewho
travelto a place butreturn
backto theirhomewithinthesameday,nyinepfor
who
in
another
andmondok
people
stay
place forseveraldaysbeforereturning
forthosewho lodge in a destination
forseveralmonthsor years.
community

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

64

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Merantau refersto those who go to anotherisland fora relativelylong period

buteventually
return
back to theorigincommunity.
The termpindahis used
forresidentswho migrateto anotherplace." Mudjiman(1978) has observed
circularmigration
to thecityof Surakarta
and theoperationof a pondok-centeredmigration
systemsimilartothatinJakarta.
WithintheprovinceofCentral
Javathereappearto be twomainsystemsof nonpermanent
mobility
(Zarkasi,
inHugo andMantra,forthcoming).
In thewestern
partthepatterns
are similar
to thosedescribedearlierin WestJava,withsubstantial
circularmigration
to
Jakarta
fromsuchareasas Kedu, Cilacap,Tegal,and Purwakarta.
In theeast,
however,the bulk of the movementis commuting
and, to a lesserextent,
circularmigrationto the major cities such as Semarang,Surakarta,and
Yogyakarta.
Castles(1967: 53), forexample,notesthatthebulkof thework
forceemployedin kretek(hand-madecigarettes)
in Kudus and other
factories
citiesin CentralandEast Javais madeup of womenwholive in thesurroundingruralareasand commutelongdistances(oftenon foot).In East Java,perhaps themostmobilegroupare theMadurese,manyof whomhave moved,
eitherpermanently
or temporarily,
fromtheirsmallislandnortheast
of Javato
mainlandEast Java,otherpartsof Java,Kalimantan,and Sulawesi.
The most mobile of all major ethnicgroupsin Indonesia are the
Minangkabau
people,whosehomelandis theprovinceof WestSumatra.Althoughthe highlyrestrictive
migrantdefinition
criteriameantthat many
Minangkabau
moverswouldnothavebeendesignatedmigrants,
the1971censusshowedthat11percent
ofall personsbornin WestSumatralivedoutsidethe
provinceand a further
12 percentof thoseresidingin theprovincehad previouslylivedin anotherprovince.The centrifugal
tendencies
withinthissociety
areembodiedintheirconceptofmerantau,whichhas beendefinedas "leaving
one's culturalterritory
whether
fora shortor longtime,withthe
voluntarily
aimof earninga livingor seekingfurther
knowledgeor experience,normally
withtheintention
of returning
home" (Naim, 1976: 150). Maude (1980) in a
recentpaper has suggested,on the basis of his fieldwork
in severalWest
Sumatravillages,thattheincidenceof Minangkabau
migrants
settling
permanentlyoutsideof theirhomlandhas increased.
In southernSumatracircularmigration
is associatedwiththe coffee,
withlargenumbers
ofseasonalmigrants
pepper,andspiceharvests,
movingin
fromrelatively
nearbysettlements
or fromtheBantenarea of WestJava.The
Banteneseare one of manygroupsin Indonesiawhoengagein seasonalcircularmigration.
As Radial (1965: 34) has explained,"The cultureof theBanten
peopleis suchthattheyusuallyliketo go merantau,especiallytotheLampung
area,to seekothersourcesof incomeor extraincomeduringtheperiodbefore
theharvestseason beginsin Lampung.They go merantauafterplantingin
Bantenis completeandreturn
withtheonsetoftheharvestseason." Thistype
of seasonalcircularmigration
is widespreadin Java.Franke(1972: 181),for
example,describedhow "literallythousandsof landlessfamiliescriss-cross
theJavanesecountryside,
followingtheharvestfromwestto east, and then
forthenextseasonas thepaddystartsto yellowon thefieldsagain."
returning

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

65

J. Hugo

In thefarnorthof Sumatra,Abdullah(in Hugo and Mantra,forthcomvolumeoftemporary

ing)showsa substantial
migration
amongtheAcehnese,
whoseadat (customary
law) dictatesthatmoversshouldnottraveltoo farfrom
theirfamilies.Siegel (1969) also showsthatmanyAcehnesemen leave the
villageto engagein tradeof one kindor another,or in peppergrowingto the
at leastoncea
east.Thesemenleavetheirwivesandfamiliesbehindandreturn
this
year,usuallyaroundtheend of theMuslimfastingmonth.Increasingly
circularmigrationappearsto focus on the major city of Medan in North
Sumatraprovince.
therehas beenlittleresearchintopopulation
On theislandofKalimantan
thatagainnonpermanent
movements
aresignificant.
mobility,
yetitis apparent
in
isolated
the
the
Studiesamong
dayakpeople
UpperKapuas area of West
Kalimantan3
andtheKenyanpeopleofEastKalimantan
(Colfer,1981)revealed
noteworthy
outmovement,
includingthepracticeof seekingtemporary
work
outsidetheregionintheoilfieldsofBrunei,thepepperplantations
ofSarawak,
orinthecoastalcitiesofEast andWestKalimantan,
Sarawak,andBrunei.The
Banjaresepeopleof SouthKalimantanhave a longhistory
of movement
outsidetheirhomearea. Rambe(1977: 22) has discussedtheBanjareseconceptof
has meantto leaveone's natalvillageandcrossthe
madam,whichtraditionally
sea withtheaimofincreasing
one's wealthwithina timeperiodthatis notfixed
(butis usuallylongerthanone year).Johansyah
(in Hugo and Mantra,forthhas
is
thatmadam usedmorebroadlyin contemporary
coming) indicated
South
Kalimantan,encompassingboth permanentand nonpermanent
mobility.
Rambe's(1977) studyof themobilityof thepeople of Alabio, locatedsome
200 kminlandon theBaritoRiver,showsthatmanyresidents
engagein circular seasonal migration
associatedwithtrading,especiallydownriver
to the
provincialcapitalof Banjarmasin.
The islandof Sulawesiis thehomelandof severalof Indonesia'smost
ethnicgroups.Abustam(in Hugo and Mantra,forthcoming)
peripatetic
has
discussedtheprimary
heldbythethreelargest
conceptsofpopulation
mobility
ethnicgroupsintheprovinceofSouthSulawesi-the Bugis,Makassarese,and
Torajanpeoples. The Bugis are thedominantgroupand have a verydistinct
of mobility.For severalcenturies
pattern
theyhave been seafarers,"roaming
thearchipelagoin searchof tradein accordancewiththedirection
of thepreto Sulawesionlyfora fewmonthsofeach yearto
vailingmonsoon,returning
refitand repairtheirpraus (sailingboats)" (Lineton,1975: 174). In theeighteenthcentury
coloniesin Kalimantan,SoutheastSultheybeganestablishing
in Irian(New Guinea),
and morerecently
awesi,Maluku,East Nustenggara,
Jambi(easternSumatra),and evenin Java(especiallyJakarta).Whilethishas
involvedmore-or-less
permanent
ofBugissettlers,
thecolonieshave
migration
also servedas basesfromwhichtoengageincircularmigration
(Lineton,1975;
Amiroelahet al., 1976; Suhartoko,1975). There is also substantialBugis
movement
withinSouthSulawesi, includingseasonal circularmigration
betweenruralareas and large-scalecircularmigration
betweenvillagesand the
movement
provincial
capitalcityof UjungPandang.Muchof thisrural-urban

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

66

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

andinvolvestheMakassareseandTorajansas well.
also has a seasonalrhythm
of Makassaresefromtheirvillages in the poorest
The seasonal migrations
sectoractivitiesas
southern
partof theprovinceto engagein such informal
pedicabdrivingand small-scalesellinghave been studiedin detailby Forbes
on bicycles
leave theirvillagesas earlyas midnight
(1978). Peasantsregularly
which
produceorhandicrafts,
heightswithagricultural
piledtogravity-defying
homein thelateafterduringthedaybeforereturning
theysell in citymarkets
noon or evening.The Torajanpeople fromthe denselypopulatednorthern
mobile.Whiletheyincreasingly
travelto Kaliare also extremely
mountains
is withintheprovince.
andIrian,thebulkoftheirmovement
mantan,Jakarta,
substantial;
muchof it is
to Ujung Pandangis particularly
Theirmigration
circularand involvesmoversengagingin informalsectoractivities.Several
volumeof thismovementand its important
studiestestify
to the significant
economicandsocial impactsuponthevillagesof origin(Abustam,1975;Suratha,1977; Mangunrai,1979; and Abustam,in Hugo and Mantra,forthcoming).
In easternIndonesia,Lucardie(1979, 1981)has describeda widevariety
in the area of Halmaheraand adjacentislands
of nonpermanent
migrations
(especiallyMakian) in the provinceof Maluku. These rangefrommobility
migrato short-term
and otherfoodcultivation
associatedwithsago gathering
tionassociatedwithwage labor.In IrianJaya,Rumbiak(1978) foundthatthe
was
of theGenyempeopleto theprovincialcapitalcityof Jayapura
migration
of circulapatterns
essentially
circular.Muchof Irianhas longhad significant
tionassociatedwithshifting
cultivation,
trade,andexchangeof suchgoodsas
to urbanareas,especially
knivesandbuildingmaterials.However,commuting
towns
and
to areas of raw material
and circularmigration
bothto
Jayapura,
areofgrowingimportance,
especiallywiththespreadoftheprovexploitation
of publicminibuses.
and proliferation
ince'sroad network
Littleis knownaboutpopulationmobilityin East and WestNusatengIt
ofverycomplexandsignificant
patterns.
thereareindications
gara,although
theperiodsof famineand
wouldbe interesting
to know,forexample,whether
foodshortagethatfrequently
occurin partsof thoseprovincesinducenonpermanentmigrations.
the
concerning
The aim of thissectionhas beento reviewtheliterature
has been
withinIndonesia.Attention
incidenceof nonpermanent
migration
to seekor engagein work,and a wide
focusedonlyon populationmovements
circularmovesto visitrelatives,seek
rangeof somewhatcasual, adventitious
go shopping,and the like have been ignored.This has been
entertainment,
ofnonpermanent
mobility
donedeliberately
to establishthedirectsignificance
foreconomicdevelopment.
The patterns
of mobilitysummarizedherehave
resultedin considerablephysicalseparationbetweenplace of residenceand
contextshave shown
place of workformanyIndonesians.Studiesin Western
how the availabilityof comparatively
systems
transport
cheap and efficient
overrelatively
shortdistances
havepermitted
to replacemigration
commuting

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

67

has been conof commuting

(Holmes,1965;Lewan, 1969). The phenomenon
thatjourney-to-work
sideredto be of such economicand social significance
counquestionsare now an acceptedpartof censusesin mostEuro-American
separationof place of usual resitries(Termote,1975). However,substantial
regardedas peculiarto
dence and place of workhas been conventionally
whilein tradidevelopedsocietieswiththeirmodernmeansof transportation,
tionalsocietydwellingsand places of workwerein almostidenticallocations
(Hagerstrand,
1962: 61).
has become of
Nevertheless,
we have seen not onlythatcommuting
of nonin thedevelopingworldbutthata proliferation
immensesignificance
has madepossiblea greater
physicalseparation
permanent
mobility
strategies
Decommuting.
ofdwellingand workplacethanis possiblewithconventional
technology,
timeandtravelcostsstill
spitetherapidprogress
madeintransport
can takeplace. Howseverelylimitthedistanceoverwhichmasscommuting
world,thereis growing
ever,in Indonesia,as in muchof the non-Western
evidenceof peoplelivingbeyond(and oftena greatdistancebeyond)theconby
enjoyedby commuters
ventional
commuting
limit,yetgainingthebenefits
betweentheirhome area and theirplace of
engagingin circularmigration
work.
The studiesreviewedabovehave shownthatmanyIndonesiansworkin
place. Quite
oneplacebutconsume,spend,andinvesttheirearningsin another
of suchpatterns
of mobilityforsocial
apartfromtheimportant
implications
the
mustbe takenintoaccountinplanning
change,thissignificant
phenomenon
of scarcedevelopment
tell
resources.Yetwhatcan demographers
investment
economicandsocialplannersaboutmobility
inIndonesiathatwillhelpthemin
in Incensusand large-scalesurveysundertaken
theirtask?The conventional
long-distance,
concerning
donesiaallow us to makesome helpfulstatements
more-or-less
However,thesesourcesallowus verylittle
permanent
migration.
thescale,
representative
dataconcerning
scopeto providedetailed,nationally
mobility
underdiscussion
incidence,causes, and impactof thenonpermanent
here.Seriousconsideration
mustbe givento includingcertaintypesofnonperis sought
manentmobility
amongthevariablesaboutwhichdirectinformation
in nationalsurveysand censusesin Indonesia.
Explaining

nonpermanent

migration

incidence
The studiesreviewedin theprevioussectionindicatethewidespread
of nonpermanent
populationmobilityin Indonesia.Moreover,thesestudies
thatthe measureevidenceto rejectthe argument
provideamplefield-based
in migration
mentand close studyof thismobilityshouldnot be a priority
entailonlypermaresearch
becausesocial changeand economicdevelopment
of population,especiallyfromruralto urbanareas. The
nentredistribution
mobility,
especiallybetween
Indonesianevidencesuggeststhatnonpermanent
notonlyfor
social and economicimplications
villageand city,has significant
Given
themigrants
involvedbutalso fortheirplacesof originanddestination.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Circular

68

Migration

in Indonesia

of nonpermanent
migration,
whatare theforcescausingsuch
theimportance
movement?
In thissectionseveralofthetheoriesadvancedtoexplaintheaccelin Indonesiaare
and circularmigration
erationin theincidenceof commuting
discussed.
Sociocultural

explanations

migration
has become instituSome writershave suggestedthattemporary
tionalizedwithinsomeethnicgroupsin Indonesia,so thatitbecomesthenorm
forparticular
peoplewithinthatgroupto spendpartoftheirlivesoutsidetheir
has beeninvokedespeciallyinthecase ofthe
villageofbirth.Thisexplanation
Minangkabaupeople of WestSumatra.Naim (1974), who
highlyperipatetic
Indonesia,suggeststhat
throughout
has studiedMinangkabaucommunities
withinthesociety,andled to
systemhas mademalesmarginal
theirmatrilineal
inmerantaubecomingthenormforyoungmen-with social disapprobation
Abdullah
to thispattern
(Hadi, 1981).Similarly,
currediftheydo notconform
kinmerantau as an effectof thematrilineal
(1971:6) explainsMinangkabau
shipsystem:"The customofgoingto therantau can be regardedas an instituof unmarried
tionaloutletforthefrustrations
youngmenwho lack individual
andrightsin theirown society.To a marriedman,goingto the
responsibility
expectations
releasefromtwofamilies'conflicting
rantau meansa temporary
family."Maude
presseduponhimas a husbandanda memberofthematernal
they
(1979) and Naim (1974: 347) bothfoundthatthe majorityof migrants
with
reasons
for
moving,
but
they
(together
interviewedgave economic
of thefactthatmerantauhas become
Murad,1980:40) stressthesignificance
amongsome Minangkabaupeople.
institutionalized
Sumatra,women
In thematrilocalsystemof theAcehneseof northern
ricelandat marriage,whereasmenare usually
receivehousesand sometimes
without
resourcesinthevillageuntiltheirparentsdie (Siegel, 1969:145). This
foryoungmen to "go to the
peripheral
positionis a strongencouragement
East" (dja' utimo)or on therantau (leave one's home area), and manyengage

incircularmigration
to seekworkinthepepper-growing
areasofthemajorcity
factorsclearlyare
ofMedanor setoffto tradein theEast. Whilesociocultural
shouldnotbe
influential
here,Siegel (1969: 54) warnsthattherantau pattern
man
a
if
a
make
independent
and that
could
satisfactory
overlyromanticized
do not
incomehe wouldstayathome.Hence,theAcehnesecircularmigrations
thataresometimes
ascribed
appeartohavethe"riteofpassage" characteristics
to Minangkabaumigration
and verydefinitely
to some of theDayak circular
in Kalimantan4
movement
(Colfer,1981:13). Rumbiak(1978), in his studyof
fromGenyemto thecityofJayapura,
explainsthatseekingsufficient
migration
was a majorcause of youngmenleaving
wealthto meetbride-price
payments
In somecases outmigration
becomesa virtualnecessity
thevillagetemporarily.
forcertainvillagers,especiallyyoungmen.
formofmobility,
whether
nonperofa particular
The institutionalization
manentor permanent,
operatesnotonlyon thescale of theethnicgroupbut
1964; Hugo,
also on a regionaland local scale (Lucardie,1981;Vredenbregt,

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

69

1980). Particular
ethnicgroupsin Indonesiahave longbeen characterized
by
whatis referred
to in the 1930 census (Volkstelling,
1933-1936) as "wanderlust."It is commonto findneighboring
villages,similarin theireconomic
andsocial conditions,
one evidencingsubstantial
circulation
andtheothervirto and fromthevillage.
tuallyno mobility
The institutionalization
of mobilitywithina particular
groupoftenasin thatoutmigration
sumesan elementof circularity,
and return
are
migration
and institutionalization
equallyencouraged.But tradition
can also encourage
stability
and lack of mobility.In thislatterrespectit is interesting
to notethe
argument
of Mantra(1981)thattheverystrongattachment
of theJavaneseto
theirnatalvillagemakespermanent
displacement
anathemato them,even in
thefaceofbleakeconomiccircumstances.
On theotherhand,theyhavereadily
adoptedcommuting
andothernonpermanent
formsofmobility
whenthenewly
developedroad transportation
systemshave made thempossible. Lucardie
(1981)laysgreatstressupontheemotionalattachment
oftheMakianesetotheir
homevillage,a feelingthatencouragescircularity
ratherthanpermanence
in
theirmobility.
As withmostpopulation
mobility,
nonpermanent
migration
in Indonesia
takesplace inresponseto a complexsetofinteracting
of
forces,theseparation
whichmustinevitably
be somewhatartificial.
One cannotsay thatthenonpermanentmobility
of particular
groupsin Indonesiais a responseto exclusively
sociocultural
of one typeor another,since manyotherforcesare
influences
factorsbriefly
clearlyat work.However,someofthesociocultural
mentioned
hereare oftenoverlooked.Some mayarguethatsocietalmobilitynormsare
merelya reflection
of, and determined
by, economicnecessityand political
of
kind
or
impositions one
another.Yetsuch arguments
failto explaininterregionaland intergroup
variationsin typesand levelsof mobilitywhereeconomicand politicalconditionsappearto be relativelyhomogenous(Hugo,
1980). Sociocultural
elementsappearfromthiswriter'svillage-levelfieldwork
experiencein Indonesiato be too frequently
overlookedas an oftenimportant
elementinfluencing
population
mobility
patterns.
Equally,however,thatexperiencehas pointedto theoverwhelming
dominance
ofeconomicconsiderations
notonlyin shapingthevolumeand direction
of mobility
butalso in determinthatmovement
ingwhether
is permanent
or temporary.
In his pioneeringworkon circularmigration
to towns,Elkan (1959,
1967)has suggestedthatthepattern
of migration
betweenvillageand cityin
EastAfricais bestexplainedin termsofeconomicforces,rather
thanby social
andculturalfactors.Wenowdiscussseveraloftheeconomic-based
arguments
to explainnonpermanent
in Indonesia.
putforward
populationmobility
Economic

explanations

Maximizing
familyincomeand utility
The basic argument
fromconsumption
herewas putforward
by Elkan(1959, 1967)in his East Africanstudyand by
Hugo (1975,1978)forWestJava.One must,however,stressa basic difference
betweenthefindings
of theAfricanstudiesand thosein muchof Indonesia,

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

70

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

especiallyJava.It is clearthatinruralIndonesia,landshortage
andpressureon
agricultural
resourcesaremuchgreater
thaninmostofAfrica.In Javalessthan
halftheruralpopulation
ownsorhasdirectaccessto sufficient
land
agricultural
to obtainsubsistence:
mostofthenonpermanent
migrant
householdscouldnot
earnsufficient
incomesin eitherthecityor thevillageto supportthemselves
andtheirdependents.
or commuting
Thus,circularmigration
providesa means
forfamiliesto maximizetheirincomesby encouraging
some membersof the
householdto workin thevillageat timesof peak labordemandand to seek
workin the cityor elsewhereat slowertimeswhile othermembersof the
householdremainto cope withlimitedvillage-basedlabordemands.In addition,by leavingdependents
in thevillagehome,themigrants
(mostlymen)
in thecityor otherdestination
beeffectively
reducethecostsof subsistence
cause thesolitarymovercan putup withcheaperand less comfortable
conditionsthanhis familywould requireand thuscut personalcosts to a bare
minimum.
Thus,by eamingin thecitybutspendingin thevillagethemigrant
maximizestheutilitygainedfromconsumption.
The argument
formaximizing
familyincomeandutility
fromconsumptionappearsto gainconsiderablesupportfromseveralof thefieldwork-based
studiesreviewedearlier.It is particularly
appropriate
in Java,whereland is
veryscarce,thedemandsforlaborin thevillageare highlyseasonal,and a
complexinformal
sectorin thecitiesallowsrelatively
easy access to employment(albeitforverylow incomeand oftenforgreatinvestment
of timeand
effort),
alongwiththeflexibletimecommitments
demandedbynonpermanent
migrants.5
Elementsof thisargument
have been putto thepresentwriterby
in severalpartsof Indonesiaand the Philippines.
migrants
duringfieldwork
One is constantly
ofthehard-headed
reminded
ofcircular
economicrationality
in situationswhereincome-earning
mobilitystrategies
opportunities
are exlimitedin bothruraland urbansectors.Therecan be no doubtthatin
tremely
manyregionstraditionally
for
strongfamilyandvillagetiesandthepreference
a rural-based
wayof lifeexerta strongattraction
on themigrant,
butit is rare
thatthechoiceofnonpermanent
overpermanent
is an economically
migration
irrational
responseto thesocial pull of thehomeplace.
A secondaspectofElkan'seconomicexRiskaversionor minimization
is thatmoversconsidered
planationofcircularmigration
to
urbanemployment
offerlittlesecurity
in old age or in timesofdifficulty
so thatitwas imperative
to retaincontactswithruralsociety.The WestJavastudyalso foundthisto be
an important
consideration
amongmovers.A circulationstrategy
keeps the
mover'soptionsinthevillagecompletely
openso thattheriskofnotbeingable
to eam subsistence
is reducedby spreading
itbetweenvillageandcityincome
opportunities.
Moreover,severalvillage-basedsupportsystemscan be mobilized in timesof economicor emotionalneed-namely,thenuclearand wider
ofgotongroyong(mutualself-help)amongthewidervilfamily,thetradition
lage community,
and the traditionally
significant
bapaklanakbuah (patron/
is notavailablein thecity,so that
client)relations.In mostcases, suchsupport

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

71

ifa migrant
maintains
a stakein his villagehe does notcut himselfofffrom
whatis oftentheonlyavailablesupportin timesof direneed.
Again the risk aversionarguments
have considerableapplicability
in
Java.ManyofJava'sruraldwellersareon theveryknifeedgeofexistenceand
simplydo nothavesufficient
surplusto allowthemtotaketherisksthatpermanentmigration
involves.
A mobilitystrategy
thatminimizessuchrisks
often
obviouslyhas moreappeal undersuchcircumstances.
Mobilityresulting
fromtheunevenimpactof capitalismThe argument
hereis foundedin politicaleconomybut is not a polaroppositeto thetwo
largelyeconomicexplanations
advancedabove, althoughit is sometimes
presees populationmobility
as a response
sentedas such.Basically,thisargument
of
to broadersociostructural
changesassociatedwiththeunevenpenetration
capitalism,which has createdsubstantialsectoral,class, and spatial inein
qualities.In a seminalworkAmin(1974) has arguedthatlabormigration
Africacan be bestunderstood
intermsoftheeffects
ofunevencapitalist
expansion upon thosesocieties.It has been arguedthatcontemporary
population
in Indonesiacannotbe explainedwithoutreference
to theformative
mobility
of colonialismon thecountry's
influence
political,economic,and social systems(Hugo 1975,Ch. 2; 1980;forthcoming).
The argument
is thatthefundamentally
exploitative
colonialsystemdesignedto controlthelocal population
and expeditethe extraction
of raw materialsin the mostcost-efficient
way
shapedthe patternof mobilityin verydistinctive
ways thathave yetto be
altered.The concentration
in areasofexploitative
ofinvestment
activity
(plantations,mines,ports,garrisons)and its diversionfromthe subsistenceand
areaswherethebulkof thepopulationlived;the
semisubsistence
agricultural
the development
removalof surplusto the mothercountry,stifling
of local
industrialization
and a fullydevelopedurbanhierarchy;
and thecreationof a
dependent
economy,centralizedpoliticalsystem,and distinctive
class stratification-allhave had a formative
and enduringinfluenceon mobilitypatterns.
Forbes(1980) has shownthatAmin'stheorycan be usefulin explaining
themovement
of a smallgroupof pettycommodity
circulation
by examining
producers
in UjungPandang,SouthSulawesi.He arguesthatthereis an importanttheoretical
distinction
betweenmigration
and circulationand concludes
(Forbes, 1980: 21) thatcirculationis" . . . a resultof theincompletepenetra-

tionofcapital,andalso . . . [helps]to slowtherateofchangeinIndonesiaby

Ifthe
helpingtopreserve
pettycommodity
andpeasantsubsistence
production.
wagelaboursectorshouldexpand,orifagriculture
shouldbecomeincreasingly
capitalized,thencirculation
maywell givewayto anotherformof mobility."
The latterpointconcerning
increasedcapitalization
of agriculture
has some
in contemporary
immediacy
Indonesiabecause it is clearthatmanyof Indonesia's,and especiallyJava's,ruralareashavein thelastdecadeor so experienced the impactof major"modernizing"and commercializing
changesin
and practice(White,1979). The fullimpactof these
agricultural
technology

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

72

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

changeson populationmobilityis notyetapparent.However,it is clearthat

manyof thesechangeshave had labor-displacing
effectswithinagriculture
(Hugo, 1978) and couldpotentially
have theeffectof increasing
outmigration
fromthoseareas. Whether
suchmovement
is to be permanent,
nonpermanent,
orbothis notclearbutthereis littleevidenceof an impending
greatexpansion
inurbanwagelaborthatwouldabsorblargenumbers
ofpermanent
outmigrants
displacedfromagricultural
areas.
Forbes'sargument,
then,is thatnonpermanent
migration
is boththeresultandthecause of inequalities
in Indonesiansociety.It playsa conservative
roleinpreventing
thefullproletarianization
ofthepopulation.Thissameargumentwas advancedover60 yearsearlierby Ranneft(1916), who recognized
threephasesin thedevelopment
of Indonesia'seconomy,thelastbeinga periodof "capitalistic
production"
datingfromaround1860. Ranneftpointsout
thedominanceof nonpermanent
formsof mobilityduringthisphase in responseto thedistinctively
different
(fromEurope)natureof capitalistpenetrationexternally
imposeduponthepopulationof Java.He explicitlystatesthat
thiscircularmigration
delaystheformation
of a proletariat;
and insteadofthe
emergenceof two social groups-an urban-based
non-landowning
proletariat
anda smallfarming
class-there is an undifferentiated
groupinvolvingthemselvesin boththecapitalistand peasantmodesof production.
The theoretical
explanation
briefly
outlinedin thissectionis sometimes
seen as beingcompetitive
withtheeconomicexplanationsdiscussedearlier,
butthepresentwritersees themmoreas complementary.
The firsttwo economicexplanations
are based largelyon a micro-level
approachand ariseout
of intensivefieldwork
and close studyof individuals,households,and small
communities.
The unevendevelopment
cannot
theorysuggeststhatmigration
be explainedwithout
understanding
themacro-structural
forcesin societyand
thecontextual
elementsshapingthepattern
of mobility.Each of theexplanationsthrowssomelighton thecausesofmobility.
Hencean important
priority
wouldbe to exploreand establishlinkagesbetweentheforcesthatoperateat
theindividual
levelandinfluence
willmove
whether
householdsorindividuals
or stayand thebroaderstructural
forcesthatconstrain
theoptionsavailableto
themandultimately
ofmovement.
determine
theoverallpattern
Fieldworkand
thestudiesreviewedheredo indicatethatthereare, as Gerold-Scheepers
and
VanBinsbergen
(1978: 28) suggest,internal
factorsin additionto theexternal
forcesof capitalistpenetration
thatat leastpartially
explainwhysome groups
orsomeoftheirmembers
migrate
morethanothers.It is atthemicrolevelthat
thetwoapproachescan come together.
We knowlittleaboutthemicro-structuralsettingin whichpopulationmovement
occursor failsto occur.How do
theexternal
forcesofcolonialpenetration
andtheresultant
unevenanddistinctivepatternof capitalistpenetration
manifestthemselvesat the level of the
village,family,or individualand impelmigration
of a particular
typeor enIn whatwaysare theseforcesperceived?How do theyconcouragestability?
straintherangeof mobility/stability
choicesopen to particular
groupswithin
to
thevillage?These important
be
questionshave yet
approachedin mobility
researchin Indonesia.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

73

J. Hugo

Transport
development
and temporary
populationmobilityOne of the
mostfundamental
distinctions
betweennonpermanent
andpermanent
formsof
population
mobility
is therelativesignificance
ofthejourneybetweenplace of
originand destination.In mostpermanent
and semipermanent
migrations,
travelcosts,timetaken,and distancetraversed
betweenoriginanddestination
a minorelementin a mover'soverallcalculusin deciding
generally
constitute
whether
or notto migrateand where.Severalwriters
have pointedto therelativeunimportance
of travelcostsin migration
(e.g., Herrick,1965) andto the
factthatthecostsof thejourneyusuallyconstitute
a one-timeoutlayand are
nota continuing
andsignificant
elementinthemover'soverallbudget.This,of
course,is notthecase withtemporary
formsof populationmobility
whenthe
moveris repeatedly
circulating
betweenoriginand destination.
The journey
itselfclearlyoccupiesa muchmorecentralpositionamongtheelementsinfluencingmoversand nonmovers,
and transport
costsare a constantand significantitemin themover'sbudget.Clearlya prerequisite
forlongand medium
distancemass commuting
and circularmigration
of the typesthatoccur in
Indonesiais a widespread,cheap,and efficient
transportation
network.
The lastdecadehas produceda veritable
in theavailability
revolution
of
overmostof ruralIndonesia(Hugo, 1981b).Therecan be no
publictransport
doubtthatthe extensionof roads and the proliferation
of vehiclesof many
types,especiallybuses and minibuses,intohitherto
isolatedruralareas have
led to greatlyincreasedspatialmobilityfora wide spectrum
of Indonesia's
ruraldwellers.The precisenatureof the relationship
betweenthis striking
changein transport
andmigration
availability
has beenlittleinvestigated;
however,it is clearthatthetransport
has greatly
revolution
facilitatedtheconcurrentupswingin circularmigration
and commuting
(Hugo 1975, 1978, 1981b;
Naim,1971;Mantra,1981).Muchearlier,Ranneft(1916:61) similarly
showed
thatinnovation
in transport
in Indonesiawas influential
in producing
changes
in thetypesand levels of populationmobility.
In thissectionwe have summarized
some of themajorarguments
put
forward
to explainnonpermanent
in Indonesia.We nowhave a submigration
stantialbodyof empiricalknowledgeconcerning
thecauses of nonpermanent
As has been suggestedin thediscussion,thereis now a need for
migration.
researchdirectednotonlytowardcloserinvestigation
oftheforcesinfluencing
nonpernmanent
mobility,but also towardthe integrating
of whatwe already
knowconcerning
thecauses of thismobility
intoa coherent
theoretical
framework.
Implications of nonpermanent

migration

A fewofthemoreimportant
theoretical
andpolicyimplications
arisingoutof
thepreviousdiscussionwillbe briefly
mentioned.
One important
initialconsiderationis whether
thepresenthighlevelof nonpermanent
is simplya
mobility
transitional
phasethatwill ultimately
be replacedby permanent
relocationof
manymoversto urbanareasas social changeand economicdevelopment
pro-

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ceed. The generalformulations

of Skeldon(1977) and Nelson (1978), based
predominantly
on LatinAmericanexperience,would suggestthatthisis the
case, as does someoftheAfricanliterature
(VanBinsbergen
andMeilink1978:
11). The empiricalevidencefromIndonesia,however,is somewhatmixedin
thisrespect.Maude(1980) suggeststhatMinangkabau
outmigration
fromWest
Sumatrais becomingmorepermanent
overtime,andRambe's(1977) studyin
SouthKalimantan
pointsto a transition
fromnonpermanent
to permanent
outmovement
amongthe Banjareseof Alabio. On theotherhand,manyof the
otherstudies,especiallythosebased in Java,foundthatthegreatmajority
of
nonpermanent
migrants
have no intention
of shifting
permanently
to theirurban destinations.
It wouldbe premature
to inferfromthisthattheirmigration
willremaincircular,formostmovershave onlybeen engagedin circularmigrationfora fewyears.At presentit seemsthat,formanyIndonesiannonpermanent
movers,theirmobility
is notperceivedas a preliminary
stagebeforean
ultimate
ofthemselves
permanent
relocation
andtheirfamilies.Theevidenceis
thatcommuting
andcircularmigration
aremorethansimplya meansto testthe
destination
environment
beforesettling
there.Manytemporary
moversinIndonesiaexhibita strongandapparently
to bilocality,
commitment
long-term
opting forthe combinationof activitiesin both ruraland urbanareas thata
nonpermanent
migration
strategy
allows them.
Another
important
consideration
is theimplications
ofincreasednonpermanentmigration
forbroadersocial and economicchangein Indonesia.Much
ofthemigration
andnonpermanent)
(bothpermanent
can be seenas a response
to the substantialspatial,sectoral,and class inequalitieswithinIndonesia.
Therehas beena longhistory
ofconcentration
ofpublicandprivateinvestment
and resourcedevelopment
activity-andhenceexpansionin employment
opportunities-in
particular
localities(especiallyJakarta,
a fewotherurbancenters,and regionsof resourceextraction
such as plantations
and timber,oil,
coal, and mineralareas). Muchof thenonpermanent
migration
describedearlierflowsfromareasin whichtherehas beenverylittleinvestment
and developmenttowardregionsthathave receivedinvestment
faroutof proportion
to
theirshareofthenationalpopulation.Whileitis clearthatthesespatialsocioeconomicinequalities
area majorcausalfactorin nonpermanent
the
migration,
criticalquestionremainswhether
thatmobilityin turnhas an effecton those
it tendsto ameliorateor exacerbatethem.
inequalitiesand, if so, whether
Accordingto one mainline of argument,
thetransfer
of incomefrom
urbanto ruralareas, whichhave been starvedof investment,
is leadingto a
reductionin social and economic disparities:" . . .since netruralemigrationis

concentrated
on particular
areas,groupsandseasons,a smallnationalflowcan
redistribute
resourcesamongand withinruralcommunities
and
considerably
betweenruraland urbanareas. Most neoclassicaleconomistswould expect
to reducebothinefficiency
voluntary
populationmovements
and inequality"
(Lipton,1980:1). IndeedmostoftheIndonesianstudiesreviewedin thispaper
referto a substantial
backflowof moneyand goods to theplace of originas a
resultof nonpermanent
In theWestJavastudy,forexample(Hugo,
migration.
1975, 1978), all temporary
moversremitted
moneyto theirfamiliesand 81

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

75

percentbrought
back goods. Amongcommuter
households,an averageof 60
percent
of theirincomewas derivedfromremittances,
whilecircularmigrants'
remittances
accountedfornearlyhalftheirhouseholds'totalincomeon average.
Nevertheless,
muchoftherecentliterature
(Connell,1980;Lipton,1980)
has suggestedthattheimpactof moneyflowsto thevillageof originis small
and in manycases even negativewhenconsideredin netterms."The sparse
evidencesuggeststhatnet remittances
are quite smallrelativeto villageincome, are concentrated
on richervillagehouseholdsunlikelyto sufferfrom
capitalconstraints,
and tendto be littleused to financeinvestment,
exceptin
house-building. . ." (Lipton, 1980: 3). It is noticeable, however, in Lipton's

(1980) reviewof theremittance

literature
thatstrongemphasisis placed on
monetary
flowsgenerated
by more-or-less
permanent
migrants
and verylongtermmigrants.
Yet,as Fan and Stretton
(1980:23) suggest,"Fromthepointof
viewof theruralsector,remittances
an important
benefit
of circular
represent
migration.
Whilepermanent
migrants
mayalso sendfundsto theirvillage,the
amountsare unlikelyto be as largeor as regular."The WestJavastudycertainlysupports
thecontention
thatthenetremittance
ofnonpermanent
migrants
weresubstantially
greaterand moresignificant
thanthoseof permanent
migrants.Moreover,the studymakesclear that,undercurrent
conditions,the
flowof remittances
is absolutelycriticalto the well-beingof manyvillage
households.Fromtheperspective
ofruraldevelopment,
however,it shouldbe
mentioned
thatthebulkoftheseremittances
areusedtopurchasethemundane
necessitiesof life(food,clothing,etc.); and whilethereis someinvestment
in
housingandland,amountsdirected
towardemployment-generating
enterprises
are relatively
small.
A clearunderstanding
of theredistributive
impactof nonpermanent
migrationin Indonesiamustawaitmoredetailedstudiesof remittances
and the
effectof migration
on thevillage.Nevertheless,
existingstudiesin Javaand
manypartsof the OuterIslands indicatethatwhenbothnonpermanent
and
permanent
are considered,thenetflowof remittances
migrants
tendsto be in
favorof thevillage,thattheseasonalor periodicloss oflaborfromthevillage
rarelyresultsin anyloss of overallproductivity
(e.g., Colfer,1981),and that
manyindividualsand village communities
would sufferdire consequences
shouldtheiraccess to income-earning
in citiesand othercenters
opportunities
of investment
be curtailedin anyway.
Proponents
oftheargument
theredistributive
effects
ofpopusupporting
lationmobilityalso suggestthatthemoversthemselveswill be changedby
theirexperiences
at theirdestination,
especiallyifit is an urbanarea, andthat
thiswill lead themto be innovators
and developmental
leaderswhentheyreturnto thevillage.Againthereis littleevidencefromIndonesiato supporta
are generallyhighly
judgmenteitherway. It is clear thatreturning
migrants
in thevillagebecauseoftheirgreater
respected
experienceandthatsomehave
takenleadingrolesin theirvillages;yetthereis littleevidenceto suggestthat
theyhave challengedthetraditional
of thevillage.
structure
authority
The secondmainline of argument
therelationship
between
regarding

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

in Indonesiais thatthisformof
migration
and development
nonpermanent
of wideinequalitiesand,
pattern
mobility
acts,at best,to preservethecurrent
suggeststhatthecirat worst,to exacerbatethoseinequalities.Thisargument
of
ofspatialconcentration
pattern
theexisting
cularmobility
oflaborreinforces
can now
investment
in a fewprivilegedareas.The factthatplaceslikeJakarta
having
drawlaborfroma muchwiderareathanhaseverbeenpossible,without
housing,
to provideall of the workersand theirfamilieswithpermanent
the
and so on, mayin factbe encouraging
utilities,
schooling,healthfacilities,
areas and the
in thosecenters.The destination
concentration
of investment
First,the
localclasseswithpoliticalandeconomicpowergaina doublebenefit.
at
thatwages and conditionscan be maintained
supplyof laboris so plentiful
low levels; and thereis some evidence(e.g., Breman,1979) to suggestthat
a moredocileworkforce.
areaconstitute
drawnfroma distant
circular
migrants
etc.) to theprovi(via taxation,
Second,theseclassesdo nothavetocontribute
housing,etc.) forthefamiliesof the circular
sion of overheads(permanent
shouldbecome
migrants
who remainat home.Moreover,ifcircularmigrants
falluponbad times,theyareableto seekouttheirvillage-based
ill orotherwise
elites
socialandwelfareservices.In all oftheserespects,then,theurban-based
whilethemoversand theirfamiliesincurcosts.
derivebenefits
In short,thisargument
mobilityis not a
suggeststhatnonpermanent
of
satisfactory
long-termsolutionto village povertyand maldistribution
mayact in a similarwayto theagriwealth.In villageJava,circularmobility
mechanisms
describedby Geertz(1963) as anothermeans
culturalinvolution
toearnjustenoughto survive
whereby
thepoorareprovidedwithopportunities
forverticalmobility
levelbutare givenlittleopportunity
at a baresubsistence
is reallyonly
mobility
Thus,nonpermanent
to improvetheirlivingconditions.
Its
a stop-gapmeasurethatwill maintaincurrent
inequalities. verysuccessin
in the longer
reliefmay, in fact,be counterproductive
providingtemporary
thatwill ultimately
fromthe only strategy
termbecause it divertsattention
of investment
decentralization
assistthepoor in ruralareas-a fundamental
towardrural
and capitalawayfromcitiesand areasof resourceconcentration
sector.
areasand, in particular,
thepeasantagricultural
Currentknowledgeof nonpermanent
migrationin Indonesialends at
outlinedabove. On theonehand,
tobothlinesofargument
leastpartialsupport
certaineconomicbenefits
perspective,
thereis no doubtthatfroma short-term
movers,theirfamilies,andto someextenttheir
usuallyaccruetotheindividual
mostlikelyalso
migration
villagesoforigin.On theotherhand,nonpermanent
preservesand perhapsexacerbatesexistinginequalities,and the widespread
fromthelong-term
of thismovement
occurrence
mayin factdivertattention
needfora moreequitableinvestment
of totalresourcesinruralareasandpeasant agriculture.
forpolicy.The imhave significant
implications
Bothmajorarguments
shouldencouragenonperis thatpolicymakers
plicationof thefirstargument
a net
manentmobility
effects-namely,
becauseof itspositivedevelopmental
of ruralflowof wealthand perhapsideas fromcityto villageand a reduction
urbaninequalities.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

77

The secondargument
has quitedifferent
policyimplications.
If nonpermanentmigration
in factconsolidatesinequalitiesand prevents
theformation
of a significant
urban-based
proletariat,
it wouldappearpreferable
to encourage permanent
migrationand discouragenonpermanent
migration.Lipton
(1980: 3) has summedup the positionsuccinctly:"Even if evidenceon the
impactofemigration
on ruralareasleads to gloomyconclusions,thisdoes not
mean that . . . migrationshould be impeded. No; the implicationsare rather

that,sincedevelopment
almostcertainly
impliessteadylabourtransfers
outof
. . . governments
agriculture
shouldstopallocatinginvestment
and incentives
in waysthatencourageexcessive,premature
and, therefore,
disappointing
labourtransfer.
This meanscorrecting
investment
and incentivebiases against
theruralsector."
It is clear thatwe do not yetknowenoughabouthow nonpermanent
migration
is relatedto thewidersocial and economiccontextin whichit is
in Indonesiaand itsimpacton incomedistribution
occurring
(bothspatialand
vertical).In theabsenceof suchknowledgeit would be premature
to make
definitive
pronouncements
on whatpolicyinitiatives,
ifany,shouldbe taken.
In a broaderpolicycontext,however,it is absolutelycriticalthatcognizancebe takenof thescale, causes,and impactofnonpermanent
migration.
Regionaldevelopment
plannerstendto takeaccountof permanent
migration;
but,as Fan and Stretton
(1980: 21) havepointedout,ifa pattern
ofnonpermanentmigration
is of significance
in a region"thentheconsequencesofmigratoryflowsmaybe quitedifferent
fromthosegenerally
perceivedbyresearchers
andpolicymakerswhotendto treatall migration
as permanent."
One importantconsequenceis theinterdependence
betweendifferent
sectors(especially
theurbanand ruralsectors)createdby nonpermanent
migration.
Policiesand
programsinitiatedin theurbansectorwill oftenhave unanticipated
spin-off
effectsin theruralsectorthatare transmitted
themigrants
through
(e.g., restrictions
on job opportunities
in the city,as has
open to circularmigrants
occurredin Jakarta).Similarly,theimpactof somepoliciesandprograms
initiatedin ruralareasmaybe feltin cities.
It is apparentthatthereare severalmajorgaps in our knowledgeand
in Indonesia-its scale, causes, conof nonpermanent
understanding
mobility
in the broadersocial and economiccontextof
sequences,and implications
nationaland regionaldevelopment
and change. Equally, it is apparentthat
can play a majorrole in increasingour understanding.
One of
demographers
thepioneersof thestudyof circulation,
Mitchell(1978: 6-7) has statedsentimentsechoedby manywho have followedhimin thestudyof thephenomenon: ". . . the topic has, in my opinion, remained remarkablyintractableto
thoroughgoing analysis. . . . Part of thisanalyticalrecalcitrancederives from

thegreatdifficulties
in collectingsuitabledata to carryadequatetheoretical
formulations."
The studiesreviewedherecan leave no doubtregarding
eitherthesubstantialscale of impermanent
mobility
in Indonesiaor itseconomicand social
It behoovesus to developa strategy
significance.
forobtainingsureestimates

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

78

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

ofthevolume,location,direction,
ofthisformof
andstructural
characteristics
mobility.
Thisinevitably
meansincorporating
appropriate
questionsin thecensus and large-scalenationalsamplesurveys.A numberof possibilities
immediatelypresentthemselves.
The first
is duringthefullcensuscountto ask both
a person'susualplaceofresidenceandhisplace ofresidenceon thenightofthe
census.Thisde facto/de
jurecomparison
was carriedoutwithsomesuccessin
the 1930 Indonesiancensus(Volkstelling,
1933-1936),enablingthe colonial
censustakersto createa special categoryof "personstemporarily
present."
Thisis a particularly
important
priority.
In addition,it wouldbe highlydesirable to includea workplacequestionin thecensus.Unfortunately
it couldnot
be includedin thefullcount,whichis restricted
to fouror fivequestions,and
wouldhave to be incorporated
in the samplecensus.6 Sample surveysthat
adoptcluster-type
samplingprocedurescreatedifficulties
because census-definedmovement
is nota completely
ubiquitouspopulationcharacteristic
and
moverstendto be concentrated
in particular
areas,leadingto problemsin inthesamplefigures
to thetotalpopulation.The designoftheworkplace
flating
questionand thetabulation
plan wouldneed extensiveresearchand frequent
testing.The questionwould need to be appliedto all occupationsheld by
individualsthroughout
theyearpriorto enumeration,
to takeaccountof the
highincidenceofmultiple
job-holdingin Indonesia(especiallyamongcircular
migrants
and commuters)
and seasonality
in circularmovements.
Censusofficials may understandably
blanchat theprospectof constructing
workplace/
usualplace oflivingmatricesforsucha hugepopulationlivingin sucha complexanddisparatecountry
as Indonesia.However,severalappropriate
collapsing proceduresapplied to enumeration
unitsin tabulationswould greatly
reducethesize of thematricesneeded.7
Manyotherareasinwhichresearchis muchneededhavebeenalludedto
in thispaper.In particular,
further
investigation
is requiredintothecause and
effectrelationships
betweennonpermanent
mobilityand (1) widersocial and
economicpatterns
in Indonesiansociety,(2) spatial,sectoral,and social inequalities,and (3) development.
Thereis also a need forfurther
testingof the
limitedtheoretical
explanations
of nonpermanent
mobility
and forintegrating
themintoa moresatisfactory
andusefulframework.
Moreresearchshouldalso
be directedtowardidentifying
and clarifying
the policyimplications
of this
formof mobility.

Notes
This is a revisedversionof a paperpresented tionalUniversity,
forsupportin the preparato thesessionon "FormsofImpermanent
Mo- tionof thispaper.
bility:Emerging
Insights"at the1981meeting
1 The literature
of the PopulationAssociationof America,
is repletewithpronounceofJava'sinhabitants,
Washington,
D.C. The authoris grateful
tothe mentson theimmobility
based on census and traditionallarge-scale
Department of Demography, Australian Na-

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

J. Hugo

79

4 Naim (1976) speaks of some Dayak

surveyevidence(e.g., McNicoll, 1968: 33youngmento engagein cir39; Bryant,1973;Naim,1974;FryerandJack- groupsrequiring
on theirreturntheyare tatson, 1977:18). For a fullcritiqueof suchpro- cularmigration;
see Hugo (1975: 234-238).
nouncements
tooed to indicate that they have attained
regions used manhood.
2 The migration-defining
5 The urbaninformalsector,in turn,is
whichnotonlyarevery
werethe26 provinces,
in
largein bothpopulationand areal termsbut able to adjustto theseseasonalfluctuations
in
also varywidelyintheirsize andshape.Field- labor availabilitybecause of fluctuations
permanent peak labordemandacross ruralareas due to
worksuggeststhatintraprovincial
rainfall,micromigrants outnumbertheir interprovinciallocal variationsin irrigation,
detectedin thecensusby at least climate,and varietiesof riceplanted.
counterparts
fiveto one (Hugo, 1981a).
6 The samplingfractionapplied in the
a de jurecount, second stage of the 1980 census variedbeThecensuswas essentially
a moverhad tweendifferent
andto be classifiedas a migrant,
typesof areas, but averaged
forat leastsix approximately
to havebeen at his destination
5 percentof households.
months.For a discussionof thetimecriteria
7 Simple breakdownsof workplacesas
migrants
and itsimplications
used in defining
beingwithinthe same kabupaten,otherkasee Hugo (1981a).
in the province,otherkotamadya
3 Personal communicationfrom Dr. bupaten
in the province,otherprov(municipalities)
MichaelDove, CenterforPopulationStudies,
inces (consideredseparatelyor in groups)
IndoYogyakarta,
Gadjah Mada University,
wouldsuffice.
nesia.

References
in WestSumatra
Abdullah,T., 1971.Schooland Politics:TheKaumMuda Movement
Series.
Indonesia
Monograph
Modern
Project,
Cornell
New
York:
1927-1933.
Abustam,M. I., 1975. TukangSepatu Toraja Di UjungPandang (Torajanshoe reIlmu-Ilmu
pairersin UjungPandang).UjungPandang:PusatLatihanPenelitian
Sosial.
Africa.London:OxfordUniverAmin,S. (ed.), 1974.ModernMigrationsin Western
sityPress.
Amiroelah,B. M. et al., 1976. Masalah PerpindahanPendudukPropinsiSulawesi
problemin theprovinceof SouthSulawesi).UjungPanSelatan (The migration
dang:HasanuddinUniversity.
1981.AngkaSementaraJumlahPendudukDari SensusPenduduk
BiroPusatStatistik,
of thetotalpopulationfromthe1980census).Jakarta:
figures
1980 (Preliminary
Biro PusatStatistik.Mimeo.
comparisonsof therateof
Boertlein,C. G., and L. H. Long, 1979. "International
to theAnmethods."
Paper
presented
of
three
Application
internalmigration:
nual Meetingof thePopulationAssociationof America.Philadelphia,April.
in Serpong,WestJava:A baselinestudy."MaA., 1974. "Fertility
Borkent-Niehof,
Indonesia1: 162-168.
jalah Demografi
capitalism:The crushingof
and co-operative
Breman,J., 1979. "Seasonal migration
cane and of labourby the sugarfactoriesof Bardol, SouthGujarat."Part2.
JournalofPeasantStudies6, no. 2: 168-209.
Bruner,E. M., 1972. "Batakethnicassociationsin threeIndonesiancities." Mimeo.
resourcesin CentralJava:
Bryant,N. A., 1973. "Populationpressureand agricultural
The dynamicsof change." Ph.D. Thesis,MichiganStateUniversity.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

80

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Castles,L., 1967.Religion,PoliticsandEconomicBehaviorinJava: TheKudusCigaretteIndustry.New Haven: Yale University

SoutheastAsia Studies.
Colfer,C. J., 1981."On circularmigration:
Fromthedistaff
side." Mimeo.
Connell,J., 1980. "Remittances
and ruraldevelopment:
Migration,dependencyand
inequalityin the SouthPacific." Paperpresentedto the DevelopmentStudies
CentreConferenceon PopulationMobilityand Development.The Australian
NationalUniversity,
Canberra,October.
Elkan,W., 1959. "Migrantlaborin Africa:An economist'sapproach."AmericanEconomicReview49: 188-197.
, 1967. "Circularmigration
andthegrowth
of townsin East Africa."InternationalLabor Review96: 581-589.
Fan, Y K., and A. Stretton,
1980. "Circularmigration
in SoutheastAsia: Some theoreticalexplanations."Department
of Economics,University
of SouthernCalifornia,ResearchPapers,no. 8002.
Forbes,D., 1978. "Urban-rural
interdependence:
The trishawdriversof UjungPandang." In Food, Shelterand Transport
inSoutheastAsia and thePacific,ed. P.
J.Rimmeret al. Canberra:The Australian
NationalUniversity,
ResearchSchool
of PacificStudies,Department
of HumanGeography.
, 1980. "Mobilityandunevendevelopment
in Indonesia:A critiqueofexplanationsofmigration
andcirculation."Paperpresented
to theDevelopment
Studies
CentreConferenceon PopulationMobilityand Development.The Australian
NationalUniversity,
Canberra,October.
Fox, J. J., 1977. Harvestof the Palm: Ecological Change in EasternIndonesia.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Franke,R., 1972. "The greenrevolution
in a Javanesevillage." Unpublished
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
HarvardUniversity.
Fryer,D. W., and J. C. Jackson,1977.Indonesia.London:ErnestBenn.
Geertz,C., 1963. Agricultural
Involution:The Processes of Ecological Change in
Indonesia.Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Gerold-Scheepers,
T., andW. M. J. VanBinsbergen,
1978. "MarxistandnonMarxist
approachesto migration
in TropicalAfrica."AfricanPerspectives1: 21-36.
Goantiang,T., 1968. "Some noteson internal
in Indonesia."International
migration
Migration6: 39-48.
Hadi, A. S., 1981."Populationmobility
in NegriSembilan,Malaysia." Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation,
FlindersUniversity
of SouthAustralia,Adelaide.
Hagerstrand,
T., 1962. "Geographicmeasurements
ofmigration:
Swedishdata."Monaco Colloquia in HumanScience 16: 61-83.
Herrick,B. H., 1965. Urban Migrationand Economic Developmentin Chile.
Cambridge:MIT Press.
Holmes, J. H., 1965. "The suburbanization
of the Cessnock coalfieldtowns:
1954-64." AustralianGeographicalStudies3: 105-128.
Hugo, G. J., 1975. "Populationmobilityin WestJava,Indonesia."Ph.D. Thesis,
Department
of Demography,
The Australian
NationalUniversity,
Canberra.
, 1978.PopulationMobilityin WestJava. Yogyakarta:
GadjahMada University
Press.
of populationmovement
to 1971.Migration
, 1979. "Patterns
to and fromJakarta.The impactofmigration
on villagesinJava." MigrationandDevelopment
inSoutheastAsia: A DemographicPerspective,ed. R. J. Pryor.Kuala Lampur:
OxfordUniversity
Press.
, 1980. "Populationmovements
in Indonesiaduringthecolonialperiod." Indo-

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

81

J. Hugo

nesia: AustralianPerspectives,
ed. J. J. Fox, R. G. Garnaut,P. T. McCawley,
andJ.A. C. Mackie.Canberra:Australian
NationalUniversity
ResearchSchool
of PacificStudies.
, 1981a."Sourcesof internalmigration
data in Indonesia:Theirpotentialand
limitations."Mimeo.
, 1981b."Road transport,
populationmobility
and development
in Indonesia."
PopulationMobility
andDevelopment:
SoutheastAsia and thePacific,ed. G. W.
JonesandH. V. Richter.Canberra:Australian
NationalUniversity
Development
StudiesCentreMonographno. 27.
ties,villagenormsand villageand ethnicsocial
, 1981c."Village-community
" InMigrationDecisionMaking,ed. G.
networks
in migration
decisionmaking.
F. DeJongand R. W. Gardner.New York:Pergamon.
"New conceptualapproachesto migration
, forthcoming.
in thecontextof urbanization:A discussionbased on Indonesianexperience."In PopulationMovements:TheirFormsand Functionsin Urbanization
and Development,
ed. P. A.
Morrison.Liege: International
UnionfortheScientific
Studyof Population.
, andI. B. Mantra(eds.), forthcoming.
PopulationMobilityinIndonesia:Proceedingsofa Workshop.
Yogyakarta:
Population
Institute,
GadjahMada University.
Institute
ofRuralandRegionalStudies(IRRS), 1977.Seasonal Migrantsand Commutersin Yogyakarta.
Yogyakarta:
IRRS, Gadjah Mada University.
Jellinek,
L., 1978a. "The Ponkoksystemand circularmigration."In The Lifeof the
Poor in IndonesianCities. Centerof SoutheastAsian Studies,MonashUniversity.
" In Food, Shel,1978b. "Circularmigration
andthePondokdwellingsystem.
terand Transportin SoutheastAsia and thePacific,ed. P. J. Rimmeret al.
Canberra:The AustralianNationalUniversity,
of HumanGeograDepartment
phy,ResearchSchool of PacificStudies.
Jones,G. W., 1977. The Populationof NorthSulawesi. Yogyakarta:
Gadjah Mada
Press.
University
Kasden,L., 1970. "Shorttermmigration
in a MiddleEasternreligio-ethnic
community."In Migrationand Anthropology,
ed. R. F. Spencer.Seattle:University
of
Press.
Washington
1974. "MobilitasPendudukSekitarJakarta"(Populationmobility
Koentjaraningrat,
aroundJakarta).
MasyarakatIndonesia1, no. 2.
" BulletinofIndonesian
,1975. "Population
invillagesaroundJakarta.
mobility
EconomicStudies11,no. 2: 108-119.
Lewan,N., 1969. "Hiddenurbanization
in Sweden."Tijdschrift
voorEconomischeen
Sociale Geografle60: 93-97.
Lightfoot,
and modernization
in Northeast
Thailand."
P., 1980. "Circularmigration
of Hull. Mimeo.
University
Lineton,J., 1975. "Pasompe' Ugi': Bugis migrantsand wanderers."Archipel10:
173-201.
The impacton rural
Lipton,M., 1980. "Migrationfromruralareasofpoorcountries:
and incomedistribution."
productivity
WorldDevelopment8, no. 1: 1-24.
Lucardie,G. R. E. 1979."The Makianese:Preliminary
remarks
on theanthropological
studyof a migration-oriented
peoplein theMoluccas." Mimeo.
, 1981."The geographical
and
traditions
mobility
oftheMakianese:Migratory
resettlement."
Mimeo.
McNicoll,G. 1968. "Internalmigration
in Indonesia."Indonesia5: 29-92.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

82

Circular

Migration

in Indonesia

Mangunrai,
H., 1979.MigranTorajaDi KotamadyaUjungPandang(Torajanmigrants
in UjungPandang).UjungPandang:HasanuddinUniversity.
Mantra,I. B., 1978. "Populationmovement
in wetricecommunities:
A case studyof
twoDukuhin Yogyakarta
SpecialRegion."Ph.D. Thesis,University
ofHawaii.
in CentralJava. Yogyakarta:
GadjahMada Uni, 1981.PopulationMovement
versityPress.
Masri,M., 1963. "Bogorsebagaikotaforensakeretaapi." Dissertation
in Geography.
IKIP Bandung.
Maude, A. M., 1979. "Intervillagedifferences
in outmigration
in WestSumatra."
JournalofTropicalGeography49: 41-54.
, 1980. "How circularis Minangkabau
migration?"
IndonesianJournalofGeography9, no. 37: 1-12.
Meilink,H. A., 1978. "Some economicinterpretations
of migration."
AfricanPerspectives1: 51-66.
Mitchell,J. C., 1978. "Wage labormobilityas circulation:
A sociologicalperspective." Paperpresented
to theInternational
Seminaron theCrossCulturalStudy
of Circulation,
East-West
Center,Honolulu,April.
Mudjiman,H., 1978. "Consequencesofrecurrent
movement
on thefamilyat theplace
of origin:A comparative
case studyof two villagesaroundSurakarta."MimSebelas Maret,Surakarta.
eographedResearchProposal.Universitas
Murad,A., 1980.Merantau:Outmigration
in a MatrilinealSocietyof WestSumatra.
Canberra:The Australian
NationalUniversity,
of Demography.
Department
Naim, M., 1971. "Merantau:Causes and effectsof Minangkabauvoluntary
migration." Institute
of SoutheastAsian Studies,Singapore,OccasionalPapers,5.
, 1974. "Merantau:Minangkabauvoluntary
migration."Ph.D. Dissertation,
of Singapore.
University
, 1976. "Voluntary
in Indonesia."In InternalMigration:The New
migration
Worldand theThirdWorld,ed. A. H. Richmondand D. Kubat.London:Sage.
Nelson,J., 1978. "Policyaspectsof temporary
and permanent
in
cityward
migration
developingcountries."Paperpresented
to IUSSP Committee
on Migrationand
Urbanization
Meetingon New ConceptualApproachestotheStudyofMigration
in theContextof Urbanization.
Bellagio,Italy,July.
Ormeling,F. J., 1956.The TimorProblem:A GeographicalInterpretation
ofan UnJ. B. Wolters.
and Groningen:
Island. Jakarta
derdeveloped
Radial,M., 1965.RencanaKota Serang(Serangcityplan). Jakarta:
Direktorat
PerencanaanKota Dan Daerah,DepartmenCiptaKaryaDan Konstruksi.
Rambe,A. 1977.UrbanisasiOrangAlabioDi Banjarmasin(Urbanization
of theAlabio in Banjarmasin).Banjarmasin:
Facultyof Economics,LambungMangkurat
University.
Ranneft,
J. M., 1916.Volksverplaatsing
op Java.Tijdschrift
voorhetBinnenlandsch
Bestuur49: 59-87, 165-184.
of
Rumbiak,M., 1979. UrbanisasiOrang GenyemDi Kota Jayapura(Urbanization
theGenyemin Jayapura).Abe Jayapura:
Universitas
Cenderawasih.
Rusli,S., 1978. "Inter-rural
in Indonesia:The case of West
migration
and circulation
Java." Unpublished
M.A. Thesis,DevelopmentStudiesCentre,The Australian
NationalUniversity,
Canberra.
Siegel,J. T., 1969. The Rope of God. Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
in Peru."
Skeldon,R., 1977. "The evolutionofmigration
patterns
duringurbanization
GeographicalReview67: 394-411.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Graeme

83

J. Hugo

Suharso,A. Speare,H. R. Redmana,and I. Husin,1976.Rural-UrbanMigrationin

Indonesia.Jakarta:
NationalInstitute
of Economicand Social Research(LEKNAS-LIPI).
Suhartoko,
1975.MerantauBagi OrangWajo. UjungPandang:PusatLatihanPenelitianIlmu-IlmuSosial. Universitas
Hasanuddin.
Suratha,I. G. W., 1977.TukangMebel TorajaUjungPandang.UjungPandang:Pusat
LatihanPenelitianIlmu-IlmuSosial. Universitas
Hasanuddin.
TempleG., 1975. "Migration
to Jakarta."
BulletinofIndonesianEconomicStudies11,
no. 1: 76-81.
In The Measurement
of UrTermote,
M., 1975. "The measurement
of commuting."
banizationand Projectionof UrbanPopulation,ed. S. Goldsteinand D. Sly.
Liege: Ordina.
inIndonesiaas a reflection
of socialand
Titus,M. J.,1978a."Inter-regional
migration
regionalinequalities."Tijdschrift
voorEconomischeen Sociale Geografie69,
no. 4: 194-204.
, 1978b.MigrasiAntarDaerah Di IndonesiaSebagai CerminanKetimpangan
RegionalDan Sosial. Yogyakarta:
Population
Institute,
GadjahMada University
Translation
Seriesno. C12.
VanBinsbergen,
W. M. J.,and H. A. Meilink,1978. "Migrationand thetransformationof modemAfricansociety:Introduction."
AfricanPerspectives1: 7-20.
vande VolkstellVolkstelling
(PopulationCensus),1933-1936.Definitieve
Uitkomsten
van Landbouw,Nijverheiden Handel(8 vols.).
ing1930. Batavia:Department
J., 1964. "Bawean migrations."
Vredenbregt,
Bijdragentotde Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde120: 109-139.
andtheirmeasureWhite,B., 1979. "Politicalaspectsofpoverty,
incomedistribution
ment:Some examplesfromruralJava."Development
and Change 10: 91-114.
Kebutuhan
Kota." PedomanRakyat
Yunus,D., 1979. " 'Pagandeng'SuplaierTerbesar
33, no. 33: 1-2.
ofthemobility
transition."
Zelinsky,W., 1971."The hypothesis
GeographicalReview
41, no. 2: 219-249.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:26:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions