OCCASIONAL PAPER TERBITAN KHUSUS

AGRO-ECONOMIC SURVEY Rural Dynamics Study (Studi Dinamika Pedesaan) Bogor, Indonesia

No. 02 Declining Labor Absorption (1878 to 1980) In Javanese Rice Production by William L. Collier

Presented at the Agricultural Economics Society of South East Asias Third Biennial Meeting on November 27 to 29, 1979 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

March 1980

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ................................................................................................................................ ii

Agricultural Involution................................................................................................................. 1 High Yielding Rice Varieties Effect On Labor Use Per Ha Per Crop Season ............................ 7 Labor Use Per Ha Increasing Over Time................................................................................... 9 Javanese Farmers In The 1880's............................................................................................. 19 Yields Per Ha Increasing Over Time........................................................................................ 22 Returns Per Person Declining Over Time ................................................................................ 22 Land And Labor Institutions ..................................................................................................... 25 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 29 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF TABLE
Table No. 1. Average Labor Use per Ha in Rice Production (not including harvesting and milling) by Varieties and by Large Farmers and Representatives Farmers in Java in the Wet Season 69/70. ............................. 8 Percentage Hired and Family Labor Use in Javanese Rice Production. ....................................................................................................... 10 Percentage and Average Labor Use by Male and Female Workers in Rice Production between 1926 and 1979..................................................... 13 Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 1923-1930, 1969, and 1978 in Java ................................................................. 15 Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 1923-1930, 1969, and 1978 in Java ................................................................. 17 Daily labor allocation of three Javanese farmers for one year period from February 1886 to February 1887.............................................................. 20 Average Rice Yields (rough rice)\A in tons per hectares and Kg per Labor Hour for Java in the 1925-1930 period and 1970-1980 period............... 23 Population Density and Landless Residents in Selected Villages in the Lowland Areas in Java ............................................................................... 26

Table No. 2. Table No. 3. Table No. 4. Table No. 5. Table No. 6. Table No. 7. Table No. 8.

Table No. 9. Size Distribution of Agricultural Land Ownership by Households in Four Javanese Villages in 1976 and 1978. ...................................................... 27 Table No.10. Land Control in Gondosari Village, Pati Kabupaten, Central Java, 1976. ................................................................................................................ 28 Table No. 11. Areas of Irrigated Agricultural Land Purchased and Sold in the Land Markets by Years in Gemini and Scorpio Villages, East Java, until December 1978................................................................................................ 28

PREFACE

Since 1968 Dr. William L. Collier has been associated with the Agro Economic Survey (AES) and the Rural Dynamics Study (RDS). He was deeply involved in the AESs studies on rice production in the 1969-1972 period, and has assisted the RDS team in East Java in their research on rice production. Dr. Collier has combined the results of the AES research (19691973), the RDS studies in East Java (1978-1979), and the published reports of Dutch and Indonesian economists in the 1880s and the 1920s 30s periods. This comparison of labor use in rice production during this one hundred year period indicates that from 1880 to 1970 the average use of labor per ha per crop remained fairly constant and then appears to have declined between 1970 and 1980. Although he has presented a substantial amount of data, this report only has what was available before the deadline to publish it in the Malayan Economic Review. The purpose of the Occasional Paper is to present the paper and the extensive appendix which contains the basic information for this report. In fact a number of the tables in the appendix were not included in the analysis because they were not ready by the publishing deadline. Dr. Collier plans a much more extensive paper on labor use in rice production which will include information that is now being compiled. He hopes that researchers will send him comments on this paper which will assist him in preparing his final report on this topic. I hope that the publication of this Occasional Paper will stimulate debate on labor use in rice production and will illustrate the importance of combining historical data with our present research.

Dr. Rudolf S. Sinaga Head, Rural Dynamics Study

ii

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

William L. Collier1
One of the enduring paradigms on labor absorption in Javanese rice production was formulated by Clifford Geertz in his book Agricultural Involution. The purpose of this paper is to examine this concept of labor absorption and its implications for food policy in Java. In order to do this, we will first examine the involution proposition and compare labor use in rice production at the present time and in the past. Besides this, we believe it is important to understand what has occurred on Java since other regions in Asia are approaching the population densities found in the lowland, rice producing regions of Java. The labor use trends in Java today may be a guide for what occurs in other regions in the future.

Agricultural Involution
Because of Geertzs style of writing, it is rather difficult to explicitly state his proposition. Perhaps, his main definitions are the following: Wet-rice cultivation, with it extraordinary ability to maintain levels of marginal labor productivity by always managing to work one more man in without a serious fall in per-capita income, soaked up almost the whole of additional population that Western intrusion created, at least indirectly. It is this ultimately self-defeating process that I have proposed to call agricultural involution.2 This definition implies that over a long period of time, rice production could absorb additional labor without a serious reduction in income per person to these laborers. In Geertzs view, the process of involution was most visibly apparent in rice growing with the movement toward double cropping, more careful regulation of irrigation water to the fields, careful weeding around the rice plants, selection of each rice grain to be harvested, and the use of hand-pounding in milling the rice.3 Related to the land itself he described the growth of intricate sharecropping arrangements as another aspect of involution.4 Various scholars have attempted to clarify the concept of agricultural involution. First among these individuals is Otto van den Muijzenberg who tested the idea of agriculture involution in the Philippines. He notes that although there has been some criticism of minor points of the concept and theory, no fundamental critical discussion has yet taken place.5 In this context, it
1 2 3 4 5

Associate, Agricultural Development Council, Inc., assigned to the Bogor Agriculture University, Bogor, Indonesia. Clifford Geertz, Agricultural Involution, University of California Press, 1963, pp. 80. Geertz, op. cit., p-101 Geertz, op. cit., p-100 Otto. D. van den Muijzenberg, Involution or Evolution in Central Luzon, in Cultural Anthropology in the Netherlands, edited by Peter Kloss and Henri J.M. Classen, 1975, p-141. 1

may seem obvious, but van den Muijzenberg made a contribution just by separating the two concepts of agricultural involution and shared poverty. He classified agricultural involution as the production side and shared poverty as the consumption (or distributive) side of the situation in rural Javanese villages.6 It may be easier to test these concepts if they are separated in this manner; one being production oriented and the other consumption/distribution oriented. A major oversight on the part of Geertz is the fact that he apparently does not include off-farm labor by farmers in his analytical framework. In most of the recent studies on Javanese agriculture it has been definitely shown that the rice farmers secure a significant share of their income from other sources, and if this other income is included, then the average income per man may have increased rather than remained constant or decreased as Geertz speculated. In summarizing his work, van den Muijzenberg found the following: Thus the third level at which we should consider the involution/evolution question requires consideration of all the resources both agricultural and nonagricultural, local and non-local, available to the villagers. As long as a significant proportion of their income comes from outside the village these considerations must involve other terms than just the productivity per hectare of sawah. Geertz fails to adopt this approach even when he is dealing only with the sawah as a resource. His conclusions on evolution in the Javanese sawah ecosystems are based solely on rice production and he does not include in his calculation even the yields from second crops (palawija) let alone the land rent from the wages earned at the sugar mills using the sawah land.7 Another aspect of the problem when trying to clarify the Geertz proposition is that he never seems to mention that non-family labor in rice production is extremely important. As is shown in various tables in this paper, hired labor makes up between 40 to 90% of the total labor input per ha, even for small rice farms. Yet, Geertz apparently does not recognize this essential aspect of Javanese rice production. In what may be the only time he specifically mentioned labor per unit of land, he stated that: This complex of systematic characteristics-settled stability, medium rather than substratum nutrition, technical complexity and significant overhead labor investment produce in turn what is perhaps the sociologically most critical feature of wet-rice agriculture; its marked tendency (and ability) to respond to a rising population through intensification; that is, through absorbing increased numbers of cultivators on a unit of cultivated land.8 Consequently, he seems to be indicating that involution occurs both by intensification per unit of land and extensification of the irrigation system. Yet, he states that the extensification was over a 1,400 year period.9 It would seem to this author that this means constructing these systems over hundreds of years and would therefore have very little effect on a farmers labor allocation each season. Also, since most of the irrigated fields have been double cropped for a long time, we will concentrate on agricultural involution per unit of land, rather than increasing the number
6 7 8 9

Muijzenberg, ibid, p-143. Muijzenberg, ibid, p-151. Geertz, op. cit., p-32. Geertz, op. cit., p-36. 2

of crops per year per unit of land. Furthermore, he stated that But the pattern of ecological pressure here increasingly encouraged the opposite practice: working old plots harder rather than establishing the new ones.10 At this point we must recognize that if a farmer increases the number of crops he plants in a field there will obviously be increased labor use per unit per year. However, most of the irrigation investment in Java since 1967 has been for rehabilitation and not for new systems. Although we do not try to prove it in this paper, we believe that the quality of these irrigation systems 50 years ago and today are relatively the same. What has changed is that the high yielding varieties have a shorter growing period. In a few cases farmers have planted rice 3 times per year in the same field but this seems to strengthen our argument to concentrate on labor use per crop (or season) per ha in testing the proposition of increasing absorption of labor in rice production over time. In another section he developed another of the related propositions which was about yields per ha: In addition to improving the general irrigation system within which a terrace is set, the output of most terraces can be almost indefinitely increased by more careful, fine comb cultivation techniques; it seems almost always possible somehow to squeeze just a little bit more out of even a mediocre sawah by working it just a little bit harder.11 Consequently, a major part of his concept on agricultural involution includes the proposition of increasing yields over time due to increased levels of labor inputs. Related to this increase in yields, when considering the physical side of rice production, he suggested the following proposition: Because even the most intense population pressure does not lead to a breakdown of the system on the physical side though it may lead to extreme impoverishment limited only by the capacity of those who exploit returns for their labor.12 Therefore, Geertz includes declining per capita returns to labor in his involution concept. Yet, he is discussing yields and in the same sentences turns to declining returns. It indicates that he is thinking only in terms of the yield and not paying a wage to the laborers. A further aspect of the proposition is concerned with informal institutions in the rural villages. Geertz extended his ideas of involution from the rice fields to just about all activities in rural Javanese villages, especially in the low land, well-irrigated sugar cane areas. In his view, the village responded to the intrusion of sugar cane, and the land lease system under the Dutch in the following manner: The mode of its (village) adaptation was again involutional. The basic pattern of village life was maintained, in some ways even strengthened, and the adjustment to the impingements of high capitalism affected through the complication of established institutions and practices. In land tenure, in crop regime, in work organization, and in the less directly economic aspects of social structure as well, the village faced the problems posed by a rising population, increased monetization, greater dependence on the market, mass
10 11 12

Geertz, op. cit., p-32. Geertz, op. cit. p-35. Geertz, op. cit. p-33. 3

labor organization, more intimate contact with bureaucratic government and the like, not by dissolution of the traditional pattern into an individualistic proletarian anomie, nor yet by a metamorphosis of it into a modern commercial farming community. Rather, by means of a special kind of virtuosity, a sort of technical hairsplitting, it maintained the overall outlines of that pattern while driving the elements of which it was composed to everhigher degrees of ornate elaboration and Gothic intricacy.13 Extending his ideas beyond the low-land rice areas, Geertz stated that involution too has proceeded relentlessly onward or perhaps one should say outward, for a process which began to be felt first in full force mainly in the sugar regions is now found over almost the whole of Java.14 We believe that the informal institutions regulating land and labor relationships became over time more complex. Geertz felt that these institutions operated to enhance the absorption capacity of Javanese rice production. Although we will not examine the other concept in Geertzs book, we should mention the shared poverty concept because it also effects involution Geertz explained it thus: .the involution process also worked its peculiar pattern of changeless change on the distribution side. With the steady growth of population came also the elaboration and extension of mechanisms through which agricultural product was spread, if not altogether evenly, at least relatively so, throughout the huge human horde which was obliged to subsist on it. Under the pressure of increasing numbers and limited resources Javanese village society did not bifurcate, as did that of so many other underdeveloped nations into a group of large land-lords and a group of oppressed near-serfs. Rather it maintained a comparatively high degree of social and economic homogeneity by dividing the economic pie into a steadily increasing number of minute pieces, a process to which I have referred elsewhere as shared poverty.15 By and large, the set of mechanisms producing this fractionization of output seems to have been centered less on land ownership than on land-working. Consequently, according to Geertz there is involution in both production and distribution. Yet, what is meant by distribution? At times he seems to mean distribution of work opportunities and at other times the sharing of the results from the production processthe economic pie. In this case, it would seem to add to clarity, if agricultural involution is viewed as the process of production, and shared poverty as the distribution and consumption of the products of production. Perhaps the most critical shortcoming in the shared poverty thesis is the fact that Geertz does not take into consideration the huge schism in village society between those who have land and those who do not. In not discussing the landless and how they gain a share of jobs on the production side and a share of the results on the consumption side, he is ignoring almost onehalf of all villagers in the low-land areas in Java. Geertz further indicates that there were no large landlord groups in the village.

13 14 15

Geertz, op. cit., p-90. Geertz, op. cit. p-126. Geertz, op. cit. p-97. 4

We do recognize that Geertz was primarily examining what occurred in the nineteenth century, however, most people who read his book assume the propositions are still valid. Of course, land tenure problems, and land and labor relationships are different at the present time than in 1800s, yet we still must test his propositions for their validity at the present time and in the twentieth century. In the shared poverty concept in the context where ownership and control of land is divided in unequal fashion, it would seem unlikely that much sharing takes place between people across these economic strata. Indeed, much of the evidence suggests that people with land are sharing their wealth with those in the same class and usually with their relations or close friends and that the poor are simply sharing their poverty amongst themselves. Thus, in his study of a Javanese village, Koetjaraningrat provides information on the social ties of villagers which seems to indicate that there are definite limits to the sharing of wealth and poverty. First in importance to a Javanese household is to have good relations with close neighbors, then with others in the same hamlet, and lastly with households in other hamlets.16 Kinship ties among farmers who have fields in the same area. Koentjaraningrat does not specify that relations with the landless, other than close neighbors or relatives, have much importance to the Javanese households, and it is difficult to believe that in these circumstances that a farmer would willingly share his resources with the others in the village, especially if they are from a different social class. In partial agreement with these finding are the comments of Selosumardjan who notes that there are strong communal norms in Javanese society which requires the surplus wealth of the individual to be shared with others in the community but with relatives being given first priority.17 He suggests that there is sharing in a rural Javanese community but it is differential and relies on kinship ties and neighbor ties. If a landless laborer has no wealthy patron, then in his own group there may still also be sharing but it is a sharing of a very little. In her penetrating study of rural Java, Margo Lyon portrayed the problem in the following way: But what do these trends admittedly involutional in one sense, but nevertheless true social and economic changes imply in terms of changes in village stratification? The cash economy and the processes described by Geertz may have allowed the village to absorb more people, but they also changed the relationship between people within the desa (village). It may be that most people had a niche in the system and that a situation of shared poverty prevailed, but increased poverty and hardship also accentuated relatively small differences in economic and social rank within the village. The fine web of work rights and responsibilities may not be to the point, for, given the rising level of conflict in village society in recent decades and the increase in relative deprivation, what are minute changes in and of themselves are no longer minute in their larger context. Thus, accompanying the occurrence of involution is a process of social and economic differentiation, promoted by the increased divisions and involving changes in land use, ownership, and control.18
16 17 18

Koentjaraningrat, Tjelapar: A Village in South Central Java, in Villages in Indonesia, edited by Koentjaraningrat, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1967, p. 251. Selosumardjan, Social Change in Yogyakarta, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1962, p. 328. Margo Lyons, The Basis of Conflict in Rural Java, Berkeley, University of California, Research Monograph No. 3, Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, 1970, p-27. 5

If the village is viewed in this context, with involution being associated with differentiation then it seems to imply that shared poverty must be declining as involution increases. In a situation where there are not enough resources to ensure survival for everyone then as conflicts among different groups develops it seems much less likely that individuals will share with someone in a competing group. Although the Javanese have as much, and perhaps more, social conscience as anyone, Geertz implies too much in his concept of shared poverty. Lyon clearly states the problem: .the increasing irrelevance of the concept of shared poverty since colonial times (at least to those segments of the rural sector at either end of the economic spectrum) all created the conditions for a radically different view of the village social and economic scene on the part of some of its members.19 Returning to the production of rice, in his concept of involution Geertz advanced the position that the most important feature of rice cultivation in Java was its ability to absorb increased numbers of cultivators per unit of cultivated land both per crop and per year. According to Geertz, increases in labor use simply reflect the capacity of wet-rice agriculture to yield more output in response to intensified cultivation practices. Thus, meticulous improvements in land preparation, transplanting techniques, irrigation management and other aspects of the growing process, all allow for marginal gain in production and for incremental enlargements in labor input. It would seem therefore, that improvements in seed variety would also be accompanied by advances in production quality and management of land, water, seeds, etc., allow for higher levels of production and labor absorption. Thus, the current widespread adoption in Java of the new high-yielding varieties should be accompanied by increases in labor use. Indeed, there is now sufficient evidence available on the use of the HYVs in advancing a preliminary involution concept in explaining farmer responses to the Green Revolution technology. To summarize the propositions included in agricultural involution, the following are perhaps the major points: 1. The adoption of the new high yielding rice varieties and the associated technology (Green Revolution) has increased the use of labor per ha per crop in rice production; Labor use per ha per crop increased over time; Yields per ha per crop increase over time due primarily to increased of labor use; Cropping intensity (number of crops per unit of land per year) increased over time; Returns per person declined over time; Land and labor relationship expressed in informal institutions operate to increase the amount of labor in rice production; Land ownership and control fairly evenly distributed among village residents; No large land owners in the villages.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

19

Lyons, op. cit., p-28. 6

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

High Yielding Rice Varieties Effect on Labor Use per Ha per Crop Season
In order to test the proposition that the high yielding rice varieties and the associated inputs of fertilizer and pesticides have increased labor use per ha, data gathered by the Agro-Economic Survey from a sample of 600 rice farmers in 20 villages, all in Java, and all located in the better irrigated areas will be used. Based on these data the results are rather mixed when comparing total pre-harvest workdays per hectare of rice cultivated.20 In West Java the average workdays per hectare to grow local and national varieties was 240 workdays as compared to 270 workdays to produce high yielding, modern varieties (see Table 1), but in contrast, in East Java, the representative farmers used an estimated 260 workdays to grow the local/national varieties and 230 workdays to grow the HYVs. Comparing labor use for the larger farmers in the sample, the average workdays per hectare were 220 in West Java, 195 in Central Java, and 190 in East Java for the local/national varieties; and for the high yielding varieties the estimates were 330 in West Java, 200 in Central Java, and 210 in East Java. If this data is combined for the three province and size differences are eliminated, then the results are as follows:
Local/National Varieties Hired labor (workdays/Ha) Family labor Total Labor No. of observations 185. 55. 240. 531. HYVs 190. 50. 240. 91.

20

William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers, Agro-Economic Survey, mimeographed, July 1973. 7

Table No. 1. Average Labor Use per Ha in Rice Production (not including harvesting and milling) by Varieties and by Large Farmers and Representatives Farmers in Java in the Wet Season 69/70.
Local/National improved varieties Province and type of labor Representatives Farmer West Java. Hired labor (workdays) Family labor (workdays) Total (workdays) No. of observations Central Java. Hired labor (workdays) Family labor (workdays) Total (workdays) No. of observations East Java. Hired labor (workdays) Family labor (workdays) Total (workdays) No. of observations East Java. Hired labor (workdays) Family labor (workdays) Total (workdays) No. of observations 190. 60. 250. 443. 170. 30. 200. 88. 190. 50. 240. 68. 200. 50. 250. 23. 210. 50. 260. 115. 180. 10. 190. 22. 190. 40. 230. 48. 190. 20. 210.. 13. 190. 60. 250. 197. 165. 30. 195. 39. 130. 50. 180. 2. 190. 10. 200. 2 180. 60. 240. 131. 160. 60. 220. 27. 200. 70. 270. 18. 220. 110. 330. 8. Large Farmers High Yielding Varieties Representatives Farmer Large Farmers

Source:

Field survey carried out by the Agro-Economic Survey after the Wet Season 69/70 harvest and reported in William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers. Agro-Economic Survey, mimeographed, July 1073, Table 1.

Based on these estimates it appears that there was little labor-use difference in growing local and high-yielding varieties. Indeed, based on the East Java sample, which has the most observations for each variety, the local varieties grown by the representative farmers use more labor than the HYVs. These conclusions seem to be corroborated by the studies of Soelistyo in East Java and by the research undertaken by Montgomery in the Yogyakarta area.
8

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

Labor Use per Ha Increasing Over Time

Before examining this proposition in detail, it is interesting to consider what Crawford had to say about labor in rice production in the 1811 to 1816 period: The high price of labor and extra ordinary demand for cultivators, is strikingly exemplified in the wages paid to shearers, which is every part of Java is no less than one-sixth of the gross produce, a rate continued even in the most populous provinces of the island, where the competition for labor is necessarily small such among these peoples is the influence of the empire of custom.22 One wonders what Crawford would say if he knew that almost 170 years later in some areas the farmers still give a one-sixth share to the harvesters. Although, there are much smaller shares given to harvesters, yet the presence of a one-sixth share as in the early 1800s would indicate that at least the harvest cost in some instance has not greatly changed in 170 years which means labor use in the harvest per unit, at least for one-sixth share, has remained the same. In Wiradis study of harvesting in 20 villages in Java, he found five that still had harvesting share of 1/6, 1/5, and .23 Obviously, this is rather insubstantial evidence but it does indicate that in the period of supposed involution, these remained the same harvest share for those who cut the rice, at least in certain areas. Of course, more people join the harvest at present, and there has been a change from excess demand for harvesters to excess supply of harvesters, yet the share and therefore the cost of the harvest remained the same. Also, the cost per kg of rice to harvest would also be the same in these areas where it remained a 1/6 share.

21

22 23

Soelistyo, Creating Employment Opportunities in the Rural Areas of East Java, Ph.D. Dissertation (unpublished), University of Colorado, 1975, p-256. R.D. Montgomery and D.G. Sisler, Labor Absorption in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: An Input-Output Study, Cornell University, A.E. Res. 75-10, March, 1976, p-61. As quoted in A.M.P.A. Scheltema, Deelbouw in Nederlandisch Indie, Ph.D. Dissertation, H. Veenman and Zonen publishers, Wageningen, Holland, 1931, p-213. Gunawan Wiradi, Proses Panen dan Alat-alat yang Digunakan: Suatu Catatan, Memoradum no. 2, (mimeo), Agro-Economic Survey, May 1974, p-22. 9

To understand labor use in Javanese rice production, we need to examine hired labor use and female-male labor use. These topics were not covered separately in the Geertz proposition. However, they are essential to our analysis since each one is a major component of total labor use. As can be seen in Table 3, the average hired labor use of the villages studied was 61% in 1926-1931 period, 82% in the Dry Season 1969, 79% in the Wet Season 1969/1970, and 63% in the four villages in the 1975 to 1979 period. Unfortunately the 6 areas in 1969/1970 and the village in 1975/1976 did not include harvest labor which is almost entirely hired and female and would increase the hired percentage. Each period has a range of percentages, yet it is obvious that non-family hired labor is extremely important in rice production. This importance has remained essentially the same over the 50 year period between 1929 and 1979. Although this is not part of Geertz's proposition on agricultural involution, it should have been included in the involution concept at least as it is applied to rice production during the last 50 years. Table No. 2. Percentage Hired and Family Labor Use in Javanese Rice Production.
Location and Year 1926 1931. Lumajang, East Java, 1929/30\A 1930/31 28 31 59 42 32 28 48
\E

Family Labor (%)

Hired Labor (%)

Total Labor Use

72 69 41 48 68 72 52 52 71 61

1144 hours/ha 1309 hours/ha 2208 hours/ha 1547 hours/ha 1376 hours/ha 1123 hours/ha 1012 hours/ha 1172 hours/ha 1215 hours/ha 1345 hours/ha

Kenep, Surabaya, East Java, 1925/26\B Djetis, Modjokerto, East Java, 1926/25 Kertorejo, East Java, 1926/27 1927/28
(A \C

Sawo, Ngawi, East Java, 1928/29\D Karangmalang, Ngawi, East Java, 1926/27 Jaan, Berbek, East Java, 1926/27\A Average (1926 1931) Dry Season 1969. Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java:\F Local/National improved varieties HYV Sidomulyo, Sidoarjo, East Java:\G Local/National improved varieties HYV Geneng, Sidoarjo, East Java:\H Local/National improved varieties HYV Average 1969

48 29 38

25 16 28 16 11 10 18

75 84 72 84 89 90 82

2111 hours/ha 1620 hours/ha 1349 hours/ha 979 hours/ha 1303 hours/ha 1799 hours/ha 1526 hours/ha

10

Location and Year Wet Season 1969/1970.\I No harvest Labor Pemalang, Central Java Kendal, Central Java Kebumen, Central Java Banyumas, Central Java Ngawi, East Java Sidoarjo, East Java Average 1969/1970

Family Labor (%)

Hired Labor (%)

Total Labor Use

17 8 48 15 20 19 21

83 92 52 85 80 81 79

205 workdays/ha 257 workdays/ha 313 workdays/ha 229 workdays/ha 286 workdays/ha 266 workdays/ha 259 workdays/ha

Wet Season 1969/1970. Janti, Sidoardjo, East Java\I Wet Season 1975/1976. (No harvest labor) Banyutowo, Central Java .01 - .19 .20 - .29 .30 - .49 .40 - .99 1.00 + Average Banyutowo\K Wet Season 1978/1979. Kraton, Lumajang, East Java\L Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java .01 - .24 .20 - .49 .50 - .99 1.00 +
\M

23

77

1331 hours/ha

73 64 50 25 11 55

27 36 50 75 89 45

1454 1256 1055 801 824

hours/ha hours/ha hours/ha hours/ha hours/ha

1127 hours/ha

47 42 40 28 10 30 17 37

53 58 60 72 90 70 83 63

1396 hours/ha 1670 1150 1090 1010 hours/ha hours/ha hours/ha hours/ha

Average Gemarang\K Sumokembangsri, Sidoardjo, East Java\N Average 1975 to 1979

\A

1166 hours/ha 1708 hours/ha 1423 hours/ha

\B

\C

G. J. Vink, De Grondslagen van het Indonesiche Landbouwbedrijf, Ph.D. Dissertation, published by H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningan, The Netherlands, 1941, page 87. G. J. Vink, Eiland Djojodihardjo, and M. J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijsculture in het Gehuct Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-140. Based on information from 39 fields (respondents). G. J. Vink, Eiland Djojodihardjo, and Goenoeng Iskandar, "Partieele Baedrijfsontleding te Djetis (Modjokerto)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 2, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-127 and 137. Based on information from 20 respondents.

11

\D

\E

\F

\G

\H

\I

\J

\K

\L

\M

\N

E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, p-692. Based on Information from 28 fields (respondents) with a total area of 19.5 ha. E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, p-695. Based on Information from 31 fields (respondents) with a total area of 19 ha. These estimates are based on 19 interviews in Gemarang village by the Agro-Economic Survey at the end of the Dry Season harvest in 1969. The local and national improved varieties had 14 respondents and an average size of rice field operation of .19 ha. The IR varieties estimate is based on 24 respondents and an average size of operation of.38 ha. These estimates are based on 30 interviews in Sidomuljo village by the Agro-Economic Survey at the end of the Dry Season harvest in 1969. The local and national improved varieties had 20 respondents and an average size of rice fields operation of .19 ha. The IR variety is based on 24 respondents and an average size of operation of .46 ha. These estimates are based on 29 respondents in Geneng who cultivated local and national improved varieties and had an average size of .45 ha; and on 11 respondents in Geneng who cultivated IR varieties and had an average size of operation of .19 ha. The interviews were carried out at the end of the 1969 Dry Season harvest by the Agro-Economic Survey. The author has recently made these calculations using the questionnaires. William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, "Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers", Agro Economic Survey, (unpublished), July 1973, Appendix tables G9, G10, G11, G12, G13, G14. In each Kabupaten (county) which are shown (e.g. Pemalang) there are two randomly selected villages. In each village the sample size was usually 30 rice farmers. These estimates are based on 26 respondents who all planted local varieties and were interviewed by the Agro Economic Survey's team at the end of the Wet Season 1969/1970. Their average size of operation was .58 ha. The author has made these calculations based on the original questionnaires. Gillian Hart, Labor Allocation in Rural Javanese Households, unpublished, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1978, p-143. The information is by size of operation: 6 respondents (1.00+ha), 13 respondents (.30.49), 11 respondents (.19-.29), and 17 respondents (.19 and smaller). Interview survey of sample respondents in March 1979 as reported in Kliwon Hidayat, Pranata Sosial Pada Usaha Tani Padi di Desa Kraton, Sarjana thesis, (unpublished), Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, 1979, p-47. The estimates are based on interviews of 66 respondents. Sri Hartoyo, "Tingkat Produksi, Tenaga Kerja, Pendapatan Rumah Tagga dan Kelembagaan", Agro Economic Survey, unpublished, October 1979, p- Table 12. The information is based on by size of operation: 7 respondents (.01 - .24 ha), 13 respondents (.25-.49), 12 respondents (.50 - .99), and 8 respondents (1.00+ ha). This information is based on research by Mr. Soentoro who is working on his M.S. thesis at the Bogor Agricultural University.

The next aspect of labor use which was not specifically examined by Geertz, but still extremely important, is the role of female labor in the cultivation of rice in Java. In Table 3 are shown the percentages based on village studies of female labor in rice production from 1926 to 1979. In the 1925 - 1929 time period, female labor use was an average of 65% for rice production in the studies of five villages for the 1969 period in the four villages, the average female labor use was 53% of the total amount used to cultivate rice. In the 1975 to 1979 period the average percentage of female labor use was 37% for the studies in the four villages. These villages are all in lowland, predominately rice growing, densely populated areas that have adequate irrigation facilities. Furthermore, the villages in Sidoardjo and Ngawi kabupatens (counties) which were studied in each time period are located within a few kilometers of each other. Although there are not enough cases to be absolutely definite, it appears that the percentage of female labor in rice production has declined in the last fifty years, and the greatest decline may have occurred in the late 60's and early 70's. Most of this decline was in hired female labor use. This runs counter to the concept of agricultural involution which postulates that additional labor would be absorbed as population pressure increased.
12

To examine in more detail the use of labor in rice cultivation, we have shown in Table 4 the average use by operations for four time periods: 1878, 1920-1930, 1969, and 1977/1978. Although the data from the twenties seems to be rather abundant we believe it is important to record the results of these early studies and to indicate also the variation in the averages. Furthermore, the author is quite impressed with the very detailed accounting of labor use by these early agricultural economists from both the Netherlands and Indonesia. Table No. 3. Percentage and Average Labor Use by Male and Female Workers in Rice Production between 1926 and 1979.
Percentage Female Labor (%) 70 69 69 69 59 52 64 64 68 65 70 65 Percentage Male Labor (%) 30 31 31 31 41 48 36 36 32 35 30 35

t e m

Total Labor (hours/ha) 964 2168 2140 2392 2118 1834 1407 1596 1104 1231 1377 1666

Sawo village, Ngawi, East Java, 1926/1927.\A Pasaredjo village, Pasuruan, East Java. Wet Season 1927/1928 Wet Season 1928/1929 Dry Season 1928 Kenep village, Surabaya, East Java.\C Wet Season 1925/1926(D Wet Season 1925/1926(E Djetis village, Modjokerto, East Java.\F Wet Season 1926/1926 Wet Season 1927/1928 Karangmalang village, Ngawi, East Java.\G Wet Season 1926/1927 Djatisari village, Lumajang, East Java.\H Wet Season 1929/1930 Wet Season 1930/1931 Average Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969.\I Local/National improved varieties HYV Sidomulyo village, Sidoardjo, East Java, Dry Season 1969.\J Local/National improved varieties HYV Geneng village, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969.\K Local/National improved varieties HYV Janti village, Sidoardjo, East Java, Dry Season 1969/1970.\L Local varieties Average
\B

59 69

41 31

2111 1620

40 46

60 54

1349 979

59 51

41 49

1303 1799

49 53

51 47

1331 1499

13

t e m

Percentage Female Labor (%) 47 37 24 41 37

Percentage Male Labor (%)

Total Labor (hours/ha)

Banyutowo village, Kendal, Central Java, (pre harvest) Wet Season 1975/1976.\M Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season 1977/1978.\N Kraton village, Lumajang, East Java, Wet Season 1978/1979.\O Sumokembangsri village, Sidoardjo, \P East Java, Wet Season 1977/1978. Average
\A \B

53 63 76 59 63

1173 1173 1396 1708 1363

\C \D \E \F \G \H

\I \J \K

\L \M \N \O

\P

Same as footnote in Table 2. E. de Vries, Landbouw in Welvaart in het Regentschap Pasoeroean, Mededeeling, No. 16, H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, Holland, 1931, p-236, 234, 240. The wet season 1927/1928 is based on information from 44 fields with a total area of 12.2 ha. The wet season 1928/1929 is based on information from 28 fields with a total area of 7.2 ha. The dry season 1928 is based on information from 20 fields with a total area 3.8 ha. B Same as footnote \ in Table 2. Rice field before renting to sugarcane factory. Rice field after returned from sugarcane factory. C Same as footnote \ in Table 2. \D Same as footnote in Table 2. J. van der Ploeg and Koesno Adirono, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost Java)", Landbouw, Buitenzorg, Indonesia, p-224 and 225. \F Same as footnote in Table 2. \G Same as footnote in Table 2. Same as footnote \H in Table 2. These estimates do not include harvest labor which is predominately female and non-family. \J Same as footnote in Table 2. \K Same as footnote in Table 2. The average is weighted by the number of respondents. Same as footnote \M in Table 2. Same as footnote \L in Table 2. This is weighted average on Kraton village and does not include harvester who farm. \N Same as footnote in Table 2

14

Table No. 4. Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 19231930, 1969, and 1978 in Java
Operations (hours/ha) Location Seedding Field preparation Transp lanting Fertilizing and spraying 0 Weeding Harvesting Drying and storing 120 68 68

Total

1878 Kediri (n.a.)\A 1924-1930 Sawo, Ngawi, (.56 ha)\C Karangamalang, Ngawi, (.66 ha)\C Jaan, Berbek, (1.79 ha)\C Djatisari, Lumajang, (.83 ha)\D Demak\E (n.a.) Surabaya\E (n.a.) Rembang\E (n.a.) Surakarta\E (n.a.) Besuki\E (n.a.) Banten\E (n.a.) Cirebon\E (n.a.) Prijetan, Surabaya (n.a.) 1923\E Prijetan, Surabaya (n.a.) 1924\E Kuningan, Cirebon\E (n.a.) Maja, Cirebon\E (n.a.) Kenep, Sidoardjo\F (.41 ha) Kenep, Sidoardjo\G (.33 ha) Average 1969 Geneng, Ngawi\H Local/Nat. Imp. (.45 ha) HYV (.19 ha) Gemarang, Ngawi\H Local/Nat. Imp. (.22 ha) HYV (.38 ha) Sidomulyo, Sidoardjo\H Local/Nat. Imp. (.19 ha) HYV (.46 ha) Janti, Sidoardjo Local/Nat. Imp. (.58 ha) Average 1977/1978 Geneng, Ngawi (.82 ha)\I n.a. 260 215 n.a 287 284 n.a 1046 (include fertilizing and spraying) 21 29 10 39 n.a. 66 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 67 n.a. n.a. 88 74 26 92 51 230 167 136 223 173 209 252 959 141 216 102 116 156 229 381 413 447 267 314 409 305 258 n.a. 280 310 351 n.a. 151 355 382 411 690 673 484 412 386 10 43 15 290 n.a. 386 n.a. n.a. n.a. 359 253 28 n.a. 421 124 459 254 220 444 526 740 501 540 839 476 520 459 316 339 n.a. n.a. 406 277 876 713 531 1019 1174 1206 1377 n.a. 1780 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1042 1136 n.a. n.a. 1834 1529 2258 1919 1523 63 595 230 594\B 286 1888

44 51 69 40 65 43 63 54

241 328 393 245 431 331 370 334

242 270 303 249 200 144 208 231

16 50 53 29 73 49 59 47

264 573 597 346 316 282 310 384

475 475 647 678 166 87 195 389

21 47 49 33 98 43 126 60

1303 1799 2111 1620 1349 979 1331 1499

\A

\B

J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Naar Annleiding van Staatsblad, No. 110, 1878, p-51 to 53. He presented the information in bahu and the author converted it to Ha by dividing in order to make these estimates of labor use. This is actually a combination of weeding which was 294 hours and guarding against birds which was 300 hours/ha.

15

\C

\D

\E

\F

\G

\H

\I

Calculation were made by the author based on information in the Appendices in E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding van de Tabaks en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw, V, No. 8, 1929/30, pp-690, 695, and 696. These estimates are from Table 12 and 13 in J. van der Ploeg and Koesno Adirono, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost Java)", Landbouw, p-224 and p-225. These averages were made by the author based on information in the test and in the Appendices in M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, pp. 252-272. These averages were made by the author based on information in the text and in the Appendices in G.J. Vink, Einland Djojodihardjo, and M.J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijstcultuur in het Gehucht Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja)", Landbouw, VII, 1931, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. These fields are before renting to the sugarcane factory. (D The source is the same as footnote . These fields are after the fields are returned to the farmers by the sugarcane factory. These estimates have been made by the author using the Agro Economic Survey's questionnaires for these three villages. The interview surveys were carried out at the end of the Dry Season harvest in 1969. These estimates are from information collected by Mr. Soentoro and the Rural Dynamics team, and will be included in Mr. Soentoro's M.S. Thesis. The author is his major advisor.

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

The author is in the process of reanalyzing the Agro Economic Survey's data on rice production in the 1969 to 1973 period. It consists of a sample of 37 villages and a total of 1100 respondents, who were interviewed by season for 3 to 5 times on rice cultivation. In the past our estimates were in labor days and did not distinguish between male and female labor. Only four villages for one season were completed by the deadline for this paper. 16

ani-ani hand held rice knife to the sickle in the harvest has also significantly reduced female labor in the last few years. And men have begun to harvest rice. The major proposition in the concept of agricultural involution is that rice production can continuously absorb additional labor without a significant drop in yields per unit of land. Although it is not adequate to conclusively test Geertz's proposition, in Table 5 the labor use in hours per ha per crop does appear to have declined during the last 100 years. Also, the information from Gemarang, Sidoardjo in 1969 and Sumokembangsri in 1978 does partially confuse the situation because of their still high estimated average labor use. When considering these results, one must remember that these are hours per ha and not the number of people involved in the cultivation of rice. It is possible that more people worked fewer hours per person than in the past. Unfortunately, the data is not adequate to examine this aspect of labor use. These results are also the opposite of what we would have expected if we use the agricultural involution concept to understand Javanese rice production. Consequently, we believe that the Geertz's proposition is not valid for the last 100 years, at least for our rather limited test. Still, this is much more evidence on labor use in rice production than was presented in Geertz's book. At least in this test there have been estimates from the 1878's, 1920's and 1930's and the present period. Because the variation of the estimates in Table 5 is quite large, the most we can explicitly state for Javanese rice production is that labor use per ha has definitely not increased, probably has remained rather constant, and perhaps has declined during this 100 year period. This is at a time when population pressure in rural Java has drastically increased. Using the Geertz concept in this situation, we would have expected that labor use per ha per crop would have greatly increased. Obviously, it did not and the proposition of increasing labor absorption is not an acceptable explanation of Javanese rice cultivation from the 1880's to the 1980's. Table No. 5. Comparison of Labor Use (hours/ha) by Operations between, 1878, 19231930, 1969, and 1978 in Java
Location and Date 1878 Kediri, East Java\A 1925-1931 Sawo village, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season, 1928/29.\B Karangamalang, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season, 1926/1927. Jaan, Ngawi, East Java, Wet Season, 1926/1927. Pasarejo village, Pasuruan, East Java. Wet Season 1927/28 Wet Season 1927/28 Dry Season 1928 Kenep village, Surabaya, East Java. Wet Season 1925/26 \F Wet Season 1925/26 \G Djetis village, Mojokerto, East Java.\H Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927/28
\E \D \C

Labor Use (hours/ha) 1888 1019 1174 1206 2168 2140 2392 2258 1919 1547 1599

17

Location and Date Banten, Wet Java, 1925.\I Surabaya, East Java, 1925.
\I \J \J

Labor Use (hours/ha) 1042 1780 1144 1309 1276 1376 1123 1177 1450 1285

Lumajang, East Java, 1929/30. Lumajang, East Java, 1930/31. Kertorejo, East Java, 1925/26. Kertorejo, East Java, 1926/27. Kertorejo, East Java, 1927/28. Kuncung, East Java, 1926. Kuncung, East Java, 1926. Kuncung, East Java, 1926.
\K \L \M

\J \J \J

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

\N

1834 1529 1534

Average 1925 to 1931 1969 Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969 \O Local/National improved varieties HYV Sidomulyo, Sidoarjo, East Java, Dry Season 1969 \P Local/National improved varieties HYV Geneng, Ngawi, East Java, Dry Season 1969 \Q Local/National improved varieties HYV Janti, Sidoardjo, East Java, Wet Season 1969/70 \R Local Average 1969 1975-1979 Banyutowo, Kendal, Central Java, 1975/76 \S (no harvest labor included) Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java, 1978/79
\T \U \V

2111 1620 1349 979 1303 1799 1331 1449

1126 1173 1396 1708 1350

Kraton, Lumajang, East Java, 1978/1979

Sumokembangsri, Sidoarjo, East Java, 1977/78

Source:
\A \B \C D \E \F \G \H

Average yields in the table are based on the information in the Appendix tables.
\A

Same as footnote in Table 4. \D Same as footnote in Table 2. Same as footnote \E in Table 2. Same as footnote \A in Table 2. \B Same as footnote in Table 3. \B Same as footnote in Table 2. Rice field before renting to sugarcane factory. Same as footnote \B in Table 2. Rice field after returned from sugarcane factory. Same as footnote \C in Table 2.

18

\I

\J

\K

\L

\M

\N

\O \P \Q \R \S

\T \U \V

M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, pp. 255 to 299 in Korte Mededeeling van de afdeeling Landbouw, No.1 as quoted in G.J. Vink, De Grondslagen van het Indonesische Lanbouwbedrijf, 1941, p-95. G.J. Vink, De Grondslagen van het Indonesische Lanbouwbedrijf, Ph. D. Dissertation, published by H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1941, p-186. \J The source is the same as footnote in this table. The estimate is for rice fields before renting to sugarcane factory. The source is the same as footnote \J in this table. The estimate is for rice fields after being returned by the sugarcane factory. \I The source is the same as footnote in this table. The estimate is for rice fields that have been never had sugarcane planted in the fields. The source is the same as footnote \i in this table. The date is only an approximation since there was not enough information to determine the exact year and season. \F Same as footnote in Table 2. Same as footnote \G in Table 2. Same as footnote \H in Table 2. \J Same as footnote in Table 2. \K Same as footnote in Table 2. This is a weighted average of the information in his report which gave a breakdown by size of operation. Same as footnote \M in Table 2. \L Same as footnote in Table 2. \N Same as footnote in Table 2.

Javanese Farmers in the 1880's

Although somewhat of a digression, it is very interesting to examine how Javanese farmers allocated their labor in the 1880's. In a series of three reports, Arminius presents the daily labor allocation of three Javanese farmers for one year period from February 1886 to February 1887.25 The data was collected by interviewing daily these three farmers who lived in Central Java. This author has summarized this daily labor allocation in Table 6. Due to the "cultivation system" of the Dutch Government, these farmers were required to provide unpaid labor for various activities as shown in Table 6. It is obvious that even in the 1880's Javanese farmers had many work activities and a variety of income sources. The involution concept ignored offfarm employment, but this information indicates that even for their own labor activities, a considerable amount of their time is spent in off-farm work. Arminius described the labor allocation, returns, and expenditures or the three Javanese farmers. Only for farmer Wongsowikromo who lived in Kliurip village, he also provided information on this farmer's use of labor in producing rice in the 1886/87 wet season and also the area of his farm.26

25

26

Arminius "Het Budget van een Javanschen Landbouwer (Budget of Javanese Farmers)", De Indische Gids, Staat-en Letterkundig Maanschrift, 11O Jaargang, 1889, Vol. I (pp. 1685 to 1720), Vol. II (pp. 1885 to 1917), Vol. III (2419 to 2186). This village is in Kemiri District, Afdeeling Kutoarjo, Bagelen Karesidenan. 19

Farmer Wongsowikromo had the following holdings which he owned:

30 R.R. of wet rice field (sawah) 27 50 R.R. of dry agricultural fields 20 R.R. of fruit trees 60 R.R. of housegarden Total = = = = .04 ha .07 ha .03 ha .09 ha .23 ha

Table No. 6. Daily labor allocation of three Javanese farmers for one year period from February 1886 to February 1887
Farmer Tjowikromo in Bendo Villages I t e m Total hours of one year Unpaid labor required by Gov. (Dinas Rodi): 1. Irrigation work 2. Road construction 3. Coffee cultivation Sub Total Unpaid labor required by the village (Dinas Desa) 1. Weaving mats (bilik) 2. Work for the village leader 3. Road constructions 4. Assisting village surveyor 5. Irrigation work 6. Guard duty % Farmer Sodrono in Kalimaneng Wetan villages Total hours of one year % Farmer Wongsowikromo in Kalioerie village Total hours of one year %

209 185

9. 8. 0.

41 84 0 125\B

2. 3. 0. 5.

0 0 397 397

16.

9 86 104 165 466 7. 21. 4. 5. 226 64 2 61 122 484\C

0. 9. 3. 0. 2. 5. 19. 805\D 32. n.a.

Sub Total

27

The notation for land area in Arminous's study is rather confusing. Egbert de Vries in his study "Ontleding van de Tabaks en Rijscultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw, V, 1929/30, no. 8, on page 674 gave the following conversion: 2 1 2 1 RR = /500 bahu = 14.2 m 1 RR = 3.77 meters 1 bahu = .7 ha Unfortunately, when Arminius states that Wongsowikromo has 30 RR of wet rice fields, it is not clear if it is length or area. If we assume he means 30 RR of area, then it converts to .04 of irrigated fields (sawah). 20

Farmer Tjowikromo in Bendo Villages Labor for own activities 1. Farm Operation Weru orchard \A Teak trees Non irrigated fields Irrigated fields 2. Work in the house, housegarden, and orchard 3. Cutting grass and taking care of cattle 4. Selling goods produced by his farm 5. Looking for seed and goods 6. Hired labor (paid in cash or kind) 7. Additional work 8. Rice harvest labor for other farmers (in kind) 9. Rice harvest labor in own field 10. Gathering wood, and cutting alang-alang and grass 11. Selling wood, alang-alang and grass Sub Total
Source:

Farmer Sodrono in Kalimaneng Wetan villages

Farmer Wongsowikromo in Kalioerie village

506

22.

54 7 205 261 373 475.5 76 70.5

2. 0. 8. 11. 15. 19. 3. 2. 13. 1. 0.

217 684

9. 27.

28

1.

20

1.

71

3.

81 429

4. 19.

313 16 4.5\E

137

5.

111 0 2259 100. 0 2462 100. 106 2548

4. 4. 100.

Arminius, "Het Budget van een Javanschen Landbouwer, "De indische Gids Staat-en Letterkundig Maandschrift 11O Jaargang (1889(, p-1910 and 1911 for farmer Sodrono, p-2174 and 2175 for farmer Tjowikromo, and p-2174 and 2175 for farmer Wongsowikromo.

\A \B

\C \D

\E

The weru tree provides large leaves that can be used as wrapping paper. For the unpaid labor (Dinas Rodi) required by the government, he worked 29 days of an average of 4 hours per day. For the unpaid labor (Dinas Desa) required by the village, he worked 56 days or an average of 9 hours per day. The unpaid village labor for this farmer was not broken down into activities rather Arminius only gave the total for this labor. He harvested his rice field twice, first time in March and the second time in September.

During the 12 months (1886/87) he allocated 683.5 hours of his time to working in his own fields and house. If we assume that his work day is eight hours, then he only spent 85 days of the year working on these two activities. Also, if his irrigated rice field (sawah) is only .04 hectare, then this farmer used the following labor per hectare in cultivating his rice in 1886/87:
Field preparation (spading) Planting seeds in seedbed Transplanting Weeding Harvesting Drying Total 21 hours/ha 663 100 100 300 300 100 1,563

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

Yields per Ha Increasing Over Time

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

Returns per Person Declining Over Time

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

29

100 kati = 62.5 kg 10 pocong = 100 kati 1 pocong = 10 kati = 6.25 kg During the 1800's and 1900's under the Dutch Administration there are good statistics on rice yields. However, we feel that it is important to use village case studies of both yields and labor use. 22

time as labor was absorbed due to agricultural involution. Once again we should explain that this is per hour but we are assuming this to be returns to the family while ignoring the hired labor which was not in the involution proposition. Table No. 7. Average Rice Yields (rough rice)\A in tons per hectares and Kg per Labor Hour for Java in the 1925-1930 period and 1970-1980 period.
Location 1925-1930 Sawo village, Ngawi, East Java. Pasarejo village, Pasuruan, East Java Wet Season 1928/29 Wet Season 1927/28\B Wet Season 1927/28\C Dry Season 1928 Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1925/26\B Wet Season 1925/26\C Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927/28 Wet Season 1925/26 Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927/28 Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1926/27\C Wet Season 1926/27\D Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1926/27 Wet Season 1927 Average 1969 Gemarang, Ngawi, East Java: Local/Nat. Imp. Varieties HYV Sidomulyo, Sidoarjo, East Java: Local/Nat. Imp. Varieties HYV Geneng, Ngawi, East Java: Local/Nat. Imp. Varieties HYV Janti, Sidoarjo, East Kava Average Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969 Dry Season 1969/70 1.39 2.33 5.00 5.27 1.16 3.20 2.76 3.02 0.7 1.4 3.7 5.4 .9 1.8 2.3 2.3 1.31 2.14 2.35 1.58 1.53 2.50 3.80 3.01 3.05 1.84 2.75 2.32 2.04 3.19 3.43 3.08 1.33 1.60 2.62 2.39 1.3 1.0 1.1 .7 1.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.7 1.8 2.7 2.4 2.4 .8 1.1 2.2 1.7 Date Yields of rough rice (ton/ha) Rough rice in Kg per labor hour

Karangmalang village, Pasuruan, East Java. Jaan village, Ngawi, East Java. Kenep village, Sidoarjo, East Java. Jetis village, Mojokerto, East Java Kertorejo village, East Java

Kuncung village, East Java

Kuningan, Cirebon, West Java Maja, Cirebon, West Java Kuncung village, East Java.

23

Location 1969-1970 \E Pemalang, Central Java: Local varieties Kendal, Central Java: Local varieties Kebumen, Central Java: Local varieties Banyumas, Central Java: Local varieties Ngawi, East Java: HYV Ngawi, East Java: Local varieties Sidoarjo, East Java: HYV Local varieties Average 1975 to 1979 Banyutowo village, Kendal, Central Java. Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java Kraton village, Lumajang, East Java. Average
Source:
\A

Date

Yields of rough rice (ton/ha)

Rough rice in Kg per labor hour

Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70 Wet Season 1969/70

2.31 5.31 4.31 3.73 5.57 3.59 5.52 4.54 4.35

1.6 3.2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 3.7 2.5 2.6

Wet Season 1975/76

1.75 4.50

1.1 3.9 1.6 2.6

Wet Season 1975/76 1975 to 1979

2.24 4.35

The information in this table comes from the same source as in the proceeding tables.

\B \C \D \E

\F

This in Indonesia is gabah. The wet stalk paddy yields have been converted to gabah (rough rice which has not yet had the hull removed) using a conversion on 70%. Rice field before rented to sugarcane factory. Rice field after returned from sugarcane factory. Rice field not used for sugarcane. This information is from William L. Collier and Achmad T. Birowo, "Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers", 1973. The labor hours do not include harvest labor and are in days per ha. To make this somewhat comparable we have assumed a 5 hour labor day and added 400 hours/ha to harvest. These are the estimates for the Representative farmers. The labor estimates did not include harvest labor. To make the estimates comparable, we have added an assumed 400 hours/ha for harvesting.

24

Land and Labor Institutions

Since the author and many others have written papers on the impact of changing institutions on labor use in rice production in Java, we will only very briefly examine this proposition in this section.30 The most obvious change has been the one from hand pounding the rice by female workers to using rice hullers. Labor use declined greatly with this innovation, and was estimated to have eliminated 125 million woman-days per year of labor in Java.31 The second change has been the spread of the sickle that is displacing the hand held rice knife (ani-ani) throughout East Java, and in certain areas in Central and West Java. Labor use has been greatly reduced per ha because of the use of a sickle. It also is a change from primarily female labor to male labor. Besides these obvious examples, other institutions have been changing that have enabled land owners to reduce employment in soil preparation of landless (49%, 37%, 63%, 38% and 67%), and percentage of very small, marginal farmers (22%, 32%, 19%, 19% and 18%). When combined and averaged for the five villages, the proportion of landless and marginal farmers is 59% of the total number of households in the villages. To even more strongly emphasize the presence of an unequal distribution of land ownership, the largest owners had the following shares of the agricultural land in four of the villages:
Percentage of the villagers Kendal Kraton Gemini Scorpio 8% 17% 2% 7% Percentage of the agricultural land they owned 51% 66% 38% 32% Average size of these farmers (ha) n.a. 1.75 5.02 1.67

30

31

Those by the author are the following: 1. William L. Collier and Soentoro, "Rural Development and Decline of Traditional Village Welfare Institutions in Java", Development Studies Center, Australian National University (accepted for publication), 1980, 79 pp. 2. William L. Collier, Soentoro, Gunawan Wiradi, and Makali, "Agricultural Technology and Institutional Change in Java", Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University, Vol. XII, No. 2, 1974. 3. William L. Collier, Gunawan Wiradi, and Soentoro, "Recent Changes in Rice Harvesting Method", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2, July 1973. 4. William L. Collier, Jusuf Colter, Sinarhadi, "Choice of Technique in Rice Milling in Java: A Comment", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, March 1974, pp. 36-45. William L. Collier, et. a1., "Choice of Technique in Rice Milling in Java: A Comment", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, March 1974, p. 36-45 25

Table No. 8. Population Density and Landless Residents in Selected Villages in the Lowland Areas in Java
Date of survey Population Density per kilometer 331 605 1,143 1,252 615 1,014 4,264 1,317 978 1,738 1,223 n.a. 556 347 1,331 754 980 1,154 543 1,043 1,115 Percentage of villagers who are landless (%) 45. 63. 49. 82. 11. 25. 89. 43. 33. 70. 67. 37. 67. 10. 65. 60. 45. 83. 63. 67. 54.

Location

1. Sungonlegowo village, Gresik, East Java. \A 2. Gemarang village, Ngawi, East Java. \B 3. Sumberrejo village, Pasuruan, East Java. 4. Glanggang village, Brantas, East Java. 5. Bangsri village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 6. Klampis village, Tegal, Central Java.
\E \C \D \C

1977 1977 1976 1972 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977

7. Balapulangwetan village, Tegal, Central Java. 8. Kebumen village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 9. Blimbing village, Tegal, Central Java. \E 10. Karangdowo village, Tegal, Central Java.
\E

1977
\E

11. Kalipucangkulon village, Tegal, Central Java. 12. Miri village, Bantul, Central Java. \F 13. Parigi village, Serang, West Java.
\H

1977 1970 1958

14. Tegalwangi village, Pandeglang, West Java. 15. Anomsari village, Karawang, West Java. \I 16. Kraton village, Lumajang, East Java.
\J \K

\H

1958 1976 1978 1977

\L

17. Umbulrejo village, Jember, East Java.

18. Mangkangwetan village, Semarang, Central Java. 19. Sidogemak village, Demak, Central Java. \M 20. Gondosari village, Pati, Central Java.
\N

1978 1976 1976

Average
\A

\B \C

\D

\E

\F

\G

Hamid Hidayat, "Desa Sungonlegowo, Kecamatan Bungah, Kabupaten Gresik", Orientation report, Rural Dynamic Study, Agro Economic Survey, East Java, 1978, 24 pp. Soentoro, "Distribusi Tanah di Desa Gemarang", Agro Economic Survey, East Java, Draft, 1979. Kabul Santoso, The Income Distribution and Employment in Desa Sumberrejo, Kecamatan Pandaan, Kabupaten Pasuruan, unpublished, M.S. Thesis for the degree of Magister Sains, Bogor, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, 1977, 100 pp. W. Edmunson, "Land, Food and Work in Three Javanese Village", unpublished Doctor Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography, December, 1972, 180 pp. LPIIS-UK Satya Wacana, "Laporan Penelitian Evaluasi Petak Tertier Percontohan di Wilayah Sub Prosida dan Pemali Comal", 1973, 152 pp. M. Singarimbun and D.H. Penny, "Population and Poverty in Rural Java: Some Arithmetic from Sriharjo", Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 1973, 115 pp. Soejoso, "Pengaruh Pengairan Terhadap Mata Pencaharaian Penduduk di Desa Parigi (Serang)", Laporan Praktek Mahasisiwa Fakultas Pertanian UI, 1958, 15 pp.

26

\H \I

\J

\K \L

\M

\N

Warli, "Fungsi Penyakapan Bagi Petani Kecil di Desa Tegalwangi (Mimeo). Rusidi, "Dinamika Kelompok Tani dalam Mencapai Tujuannya. Studi Kasus di Desa Amansari Kecamatan Rengasdengklok, Kabupaten Karawang", Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, IPB, 1979, 149 pp. Kliwon Hidayat, "Institutional Ngedok pada Usahatani Padi Sawah di Desa Kraton, Malang", Departemen Social Ekonomi, Fakultas Pertanian, Unibraw, 1978, 30 pp. Kabul Santoso, "Income Distribution and Employment in Three Villages in East Java, (mimeographed), 107 pp. Team Universitas Diponegoro, "Seri Laporan Observasi I/I/79", Universitas Diponegoro - Agricultural Development Council, 22 November 1978. Universitas & IKIP Kristen Satya Wacana - Lembaga Penelitian Ilmu Ilmu Sosial, Beberapa Masalah Pembangunan Pedesaan (Suatu Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Sayung, Kabupaten Demak, Jawa Tengah, 1976), 33 pp. Frans Husken, Landlords, Sharecroppers, and Agriculture Laborers: Changing Labor Relations in Rural Java", Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1979, pp. 104-151. In calculating the population density, we have assumed a family size of 5 then used his information of 678 families and 325 hectares of land in the village.

Therefore, when we examine the agricultural involution concept for the last 100 years we must recognize that Geertz did not consider the problem of landless and unequal distribution of ownership. Perhaps he assumed that before the 1900's this was not a problem. However, at the present time in rural Java these are major tenure issues and greatly influence who benefits from rural development. Unfortunately, in the case studies for the 1923-1930 period no information is available on landless people and distribution and therefore we cannot determine what change has taken place during the last 50 years. Some indication of changing land control during the last 50 years is presented in Table 11 on Gemini and Scorpio villages in East Java. Although the sale of land accelerated beginning in the 1950's there were sales of land before 1940. Therefore, village agricultural land was changing hands before 1940 and if it was the same as at the present time then the wealthier farmers were buying from the marginal farmers causing concentration of land ownership. At least in these two villages in East Java the sale of land occurred frequently and a substantial share of their land has been involved in these transactions. Based on Table 11 and other studies not included in this paper, we believe that in Java there is substantial and frequent sale of land and shifting sizes of operation due to seasonal changes in renting and sharecropping. The involution concept does not provide for concentration of land ownership and land control in Javanese villages. Therefore, involution is not a satisfactory explanation of what is occurring in Javanese villages at the present time. Table No. 9. Size Distribution of Agricultural Land Ownership by Households in Four Javanese Villages in 1976 and 1978.
Size Distribution (ha) 0 .01 .50 1.00 +
Source :
\A

Kendal, Central Java \A (%) 49.

Kraton, East Java \B (%) 37. 32. 16. 17.

Gemini, East Java \C (%) 63. 19. 14. 4.

Scorpio, East Java \C (%) 38. 19. 36. 7.

.49 .99

22. 21. 8.

\B

\C

Gillian Hart, "Labor Allocation Strategies in Rural Javanese Households", Ph. D Dissertation, unpublished, Cornell University, 1976, p-91. Kliwon Hidayat, "Pranata Sosial Pada Usahatani Padi di Desa Kraton", Sarjana thesis, unpublished, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia, 1979, p-11. Soentoro, Land and Labor Relationship in East Java, M.S. Thesis, unpublished, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia, 1980.

27

Table No.10. Land Control in Gondosari Village, Pati Kabupaten, Central Java, 1976.
Number of Households 23 76 121 222 218 13 Total
Source:

Social Classes Large land owners (21/2 ha+) Rich and Middle farmers (1/2 - 21/2 ha) Small and Marginal farmers ( /2 ha) Sharecroppers Agricultural laborers Working outsides agriculture
1

Percentage (%) 4. 11. 18. 33. 32. 2. 100.

678

Frans Husken, "Landlords, Sharecroppers and Agricultural Laborers: Changing Labor Relations in Rural Java", Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1979, p-143.

Table No. 11. Areas of Irrigated Agricultural Land Purchased and Sold in the Land Markets by Years in Gemini and Scorpio Villages, East Java, until December 1978.
Gemini Village Year land purchased Area of land in the transaction (ha) 4.60 .57 35.44 22.84 17.04 Total
Source:

Scorpio Village Area of land in the transaction (ha) 4.0 .67 4.99 10.95 15.01 35.62 Number of seller 21 7 28 45 55 156

Number of seller 12 4 78 58 61 213

Before 1940 1940 - 1949 1950 - 1959 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1978

80.50

Census of Households, December 1978, as reported in Soentoro, "Land and Labor Relationship in East Java", M.S. Thesis (unpublished), Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia, 1979.

28

Summary

The main purpose of this paper is to examine labor use in rice production in Java during the last 100 years. Because the concept of agricultural involution is intimately tied to the same issue, we have used this concept as a framework for the analysis. Involution consist of a number of propositions that we have tried to test for their validity during the 1880 to 1980 period in the lowland, rice producing villages, primarily in East Java. The propositions and the results of the test are the following: High yielding rice varieties use more labor than local varieties per ha per crop: Not Valid Labor use per ha per crop has increased over time: Not Valid Yields per ha increased over time: Valid Cropping intensity per unit of land per year increased over time: Valid (but not tested) Returns per person declined over time: Not Valid Land and labor institutions for increasing the labor use in rice production: Not Valid Land ownership and control relatively evenly distributed: Not Valid No large land owners: Not Valid

The author believes that propositions 1, 2, 3, and 5 have been adequately tested and the results reasonably reliable. Proposition 4 on cropping intensity was not tested because of a lack of information in the studies in the 1878-1930 periods. However, intuitively the number of crops per unit of land per year probably has increased in these lowland, well irrigated, rice producing villages for three reasons. The Dutch planted most of the area in a cycle of sugarcane by the factory and rice by the farmers. With the departure of the Dutch a somewhat smaller area of rice fields is planted in sugarcane allowing more crops by the Javanese rice farmers. The second reason is that the high yielding varieties are planted extensively in East Java and the growing season per crop is shorter, allowing for increased cropping intensity. However, there are insect and soil condition problems when rice is grown three times per year or five times in two years. Also, there is a definite limit to higher levels of cropping intensity. The third reason it may be valid is the possibility of better water control. Consequently, proposition 4 may be valid but it is not a crucial element of involution when considering areas that had good irrigation facilities in both the 1920's and the 1970's. Proposition 6 on land and labor institutions was not tested in this paper, rather previous articles were referred to and based on these reports we assume that this is not valid. Obviously, this is not an adequate test but we believe it indicates that these institutions have not encouraged increased labor use in rice production.

29

Propositions 7 and 8 are not valid for the twenty village case studies. Although these are not representative of lowland rice villages it is a strong enough indication to reject these two propositions. Also we recognize that Geertz did not overtly state these propositions in his concept. Based on these tests, the agricultural involution concept is not an adequate explanation of what has occurred in rice production in Java during the last 100 years. Obviously, this paper has not attempted to test the concept for the 1800''s - 1900's period when the cultivation system and Dutch penetration were strongly affecting these lowland rice producing villages. But, the evidence presented in Geertz's book on agricultural involution is not adequate for him to state that his concept is valid for the nineteenth century. The author of this paper has always been amazed at the lack of critical examination of this concept. If we only consider agricultural involution as an interesting hypothesis, then it is a significant contribution to academic thought. But, if we believe it is an adequate exposition and description of Javanese rice production in the twentieth century, then we will never understand what is presently occurring in rural Java. Our only thoughts on the sections in his book about upland, swidden cultivation is that he does not present enough relevant information to be convincing and one only feels that Geertz has not adequately examined upland agriculture. Besides the emphasis on testing the involution concept, another purpose of this paper has been to examine family and hired labor use, and male and female labor use in rice production. Both of these have not been sufficiently recognized as important in most studies. This paper shows that hired labor and female labor are extremely important in understanding Javanese rice production during the last 100 years. The major change has been a decline in hired female labor use in the last ten years. In conclusion the results of this analysis show that rice production will not be able to absorb more labor. Government policies for providing employment to rural Javanese in lowland areas cannot assume that rice will provide more employment for the increasing population in these rural areas. An important research topic is how much employment will be created by agriculture (not just rice in lowland areas) as it develops in the future. This paper throws doubt on the ability of rice to absorb more labor and may be an indicator of what is occurring for other crops. Other countries in Asia may be already or will be experiencing this problem. Hopefully, this paper provides some information on what has occurred in Java over the 100 year period.

30

Bibliography
Arminius, "Het Budget van een Javanschen Landbouwer, "De indische Gids Staat-en Letterkundig Maandschrift 11O Jaargang, 1889, Vol. I (pp. 1685 to 1720), Vol. II (pp. 1885 to 1971), Vol. III (pp. 2149 to 2186). Collier, William L. and Achmad T. Birowo, Comparison of Input Use and Yields of Various Rice Varieties by Large Farmers and Representative Farmers. Agro-Economic Survey (unpublished), July 1973. Collier, William L., Jusuf Colter, Sinarhadi, "Choice of Technique in Rice Milling in Java: A Comment", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, March 1974. Collier, William L. and Soentoro, "Rural Development and Decline of Traditional Village Welfare Institutions in Java", Development Studies Center, Australian National University (accepted for publication), 1980. Collier, William L., Soentoro, Gunawan Wiradi, and Makali, "Agricultural Technology and Institutional Change in Java", Food Research Institute Studies, Stanford University, Vol. XII, No. 2, 1974. Collier, William L., Gunawan Wiradi, and Soentoro, "Recent Changes in Rice Harvesting Method", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2, July 1973. Collier, William L., Gunawan Wiradi, and Soentoro, "Recent Changes in Rice Harvesting Method", Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2, July 1973. Edmunson, W., "Land, Food and Work in Three Javanese Village", unpublished Doctor Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography, 1972. Gelpke, Sollewijn J.N.F., Naar Annleiding van Staatsblad, 1878, No. 110, Batavia, Landsdrikkerij, 1901. Geertz, Clifford, Agricultural Involution, University of California Press, 1963/ Hart, Gillian, Labor Allocation in Rural Javanese Households, unpublished, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1976. Hartoyo, Sri, "Tingkat Produksi, Tenaga Kerja, Pendapatan Rumah Kelembagaan", Agro Economic Survey, unpublished, October 1979. Tangga dan

Hamid Hidayat, "Desa Sungonlegowo, Kecamatan Bungah, Kabupaten Gresik", Orientation report, Rural Dynamic Study, Agro Economic Survey, East Java, 1978. Hidayat, Kliwon, Pranata Sosial Pada Usaha Tani Padi di Desa Kraton, Sarjana thesis, (unpublished), Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, 1979.

31

Hidayat, Kliwon, "Institutional Ngedok pada Usahatani Padi Sawah di Desa Kraton, Malang", Departemen Social Ekonomi, (mimeo), Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Brawijaya, 1978. Koentjaraningrat, Tjelapar: A Village in South Central Java, in Villages in Indonesia, edited by Koentjaraningrat, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1967. Lyons, Margo, The Basis of Conflict in Rural Java, Berkeley, University of California, Research Monograph No. 3, Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, 1970. Montgomery, R.D. and D.G. Sisler, Labor Absorption in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: An InputOutput Study, Cornell University, A.E. Res. 75-10, March, 1976. Muijzenberg, Otto D. van den, Involution or Evolution in Central Luzon, in Cultural Anthropology in the Netherlands, edited by Peter Kloss and Henri J.M. Classen, 1975. Ploeg, J. van der, "Landbouwkundige Beschrijving van het Regentschap Loemadjang (Oost Java)", Landbouw, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. Rusidi, "Dinamika Kelompok Tani dalam Mencapai Tujuannya. Studi Kasus di Desa Amansari Kecamatan Rengasdengklok, Kabupaten Karawang", M.S. Thesis, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Bogor Agricultural University, 1979. Santoso, Kabul, "Income Distribution and Employment in Three Villages in East Java, (mimeographed), Jember University, Jember, Indonesia, 1978. Santoso, Kabul, The Income Distribution and Employment in Desa Sumberrejo, Kecamatan Pandaan, Kabupaten Pasuruan, unpublished, M.S. Thesis, Bogor, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Bogor Agricultural University, 1977. Scheltema, A.M.P.A., Deelbouw in Nederlandisch Indie, Ph.D. Dissertation, H. Veenman and Zonen publishers, Wegeningen, Holland, 1931. Selosoemardjan, Social Changes in Yogyakarta, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1962. Singarimbun, M and D. H. Penny, "Population and Poverty in Rural Java: Some Arithmetic from Sriharjo", Department of Agricultural Economics, Staff Paper, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, 1973. Smits, M.B., "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26. Social Science Research Institute, "Laporan Penelitian Evaluasi Petak Tertier Percontohan di Wilayah Sub Prosida dan Pemali Comal", Satya Wacana University, Salatiga, Indonesia, 1978.

32

Social Science Research Institute, "Beberapa Masalah Pembangunan Pedesaan (Suatu Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Sayung, Kabupaten Demak, Jawa Tengah), Satya Wacana University, Salatiga, Indonesia, 1976. Soejoso, "Pengaruh Pengairan Terhadap Mata Pencaharaian Penduduk di Desa Parigi (Serang)", Laporan Praktek Mahasisiwa Fakultas Pertanian UI, 1958. Soelistyo, "Creating Employment Opportunities in the Rural Areas of East Java". Ph. D. Dissertation (unpublished), University of Colorado, 1975. Soentoro, Land and Labor Relationship in East Java, M.S. Thesis research, first draft, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia, 1979. Soentoro, "Distribusi Tanah di Desa Gemarang", Agro Economic Survey, East Java, (mimeo), 1979. Team Diponegoro University, "Seri Laporan Observasi I/I/79", (mimeo), 1978. Vink, G. J., De Grondslagen van het Indonesiche Landbouwbedrijf, Ph.D. Dissertation, published by H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningan, The Netherlands, 1941. Vink, G. J., Eiland Djojodihardjo, and M. J. van den Brand, "Ontleding van de Rijsculture in het Gehuct Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 6, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. Vink, G. J., Eiland Djojodihardjo, and Goenoeng Iskandar, "Partieele Baedrijfsontleding te Djetis (Modjokerto)", Landbouw, VII, 1931/31, No. 2, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. Vries, E. de, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaks- en Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, Buitenzorg, Indonesia. Vries, E. de, Landbouw in Welvaart in het Regentschap Pasoeroean, Mededeeling, No. 16, H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, Holland, 1931. Warli, "Fungsi Penyakapan Bagi Petani Kecil di Desa Tegalwangi". (Mimeo). 1958. Wiradi, Gunawan, "Proses Panen dan Alat yang Digunakan: Suatu Catatan", Memorandum No. 2, (mimeo), Agro Economic Survey, May 1974.

33

Appendix
Table 1. Labor Use in Rice Production in the Kediri District (East Java) in 1878. \A
I t e m Seedbed Plowing ( 2x ) Harrowing ( 3x ) Spading ( 1x ) Other soil preparation Repairing bunds Throwing out weeds Planting seeds Building fence around seedbed Sub Total Field Preparation Plowing (first) Plowing (second) Harrowing (first) Harrowing (second) Harrowing (third) Spading Other land preparation Repairing bunds Throwing out weeds Sub Total Transplanting 1. Pulling and distributing seedlings 2. Planting seedlings Sub Total Weeding First weeding after 20 days Second weeding Sub Total Guarding the field and controlling water Harvesting Transporting, storing, and drying the paddy Total
Source:
\A

Hours/ha 4. 4. 4. 7. 3. 3. 21. 17 63. 60. 44. 24. 24. 24. 120. 179. 73. 47. 595. 26. 204. 230. 90. 204. 294 300. 286. 120. 1888.

J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Naar Annleiding van Staatsblad, no. 110, 1878, pp. 51-53.

Dr. Gelpke described how he estimated the labor use. He actually measured the hours it takes to perform each operation and the area in which they did. Presumably, he did this in the Kediri area where he was the Assistant Resident for Ngrowo (Kediri) between 1874 to 1880.

Appendix - 1

Table 2.

Labor Allocation by Months for a Javanese Farmer (Tjowikromo in Bendo village) in 1886/87
Item Labor Allocation (hours) by Months July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.

Feb.

Mar.

April

May

June

Dec.

Jan.

Total

Unpaid labor required by Government (Dinas Rodi) 1. Irrigation work 2. Road construction Unpaid labor required by the Village (Dinas Desa) 1. Road construction 2. Irrigation work 3. Guard duty 4. Work for village leader Labor for own activities 1. Land cultivation 2. Work in house 3. Additional work 4. Hired labor paid in cash or kind

7 29

5 12

0 6

9 6

109 2

0 11

37 6

4 6

8 6

17 6

4 15

9 80

209 185

9. 8.

6 0 20 0

8 0 67 19

0 3 44 12

3 1 40 14

0 1 40 0

3 0 10 0

17 74 30 17

1 21 50 0

17 28 65 0

5 37 50 0

13 0 26 4

31 0 30 20

104 165 466 86

5. 7. 21. 4.

Appendix - 2

83 0 62 10

44 0 132 0

46 0 89 0

66 0 58 0

28 0 43 0

15 0 2 0

41 0 29 0

33 0 13 33

69 26 0 16

49 0 1 15

11 0 0 3

21 2 0 4

506 28 429 81 2259

22. 1. 19. 4. 100.

Source:

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

Table 3.

Labor Allocation by Months for a Javanese Farmer (Sodrono in Kalimeneng Wetan village) in 1886/87.
Item Labor Allocation (hours) July Aug. Sept. Oct. 24 11 0 43 .5 0 0 19 12 12 0 42 1 0 45.5 30 0 0 0 20 0 0 15 44 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 17

Feb. 0 11 0 0 5 0 0 9

Mar. 0 34 0 36 3 0 0 0

April 0 0 0 36.5 0 0 0 0

May 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

June 5 0 0 29 0 0 0 9

Nov. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dec. 0 10 9 0 0 2 0 0

Jan. 0 6 0 0 53.5 0 0 3

Total 41 84 9 225.5 64 2 60.5 122

% 2. 3. 9. 3. 2. 5.

Unpaid labor required by Government (Dinas Rodi) 1. Irrigation work 2. Road construction Unpaid labor required by the Village (Dinas Desa) 1. Weaving mats (bilik) 2. Official work for the village leaders 3. Guard duty 4. Work for village leader 5. Irrigation work 6. Guard duty Labor for own activities 1. Farm production operations: Weru orchad Teak tree orchard Dry land Ag. Irrigated fields 2. Work in house, gardenm and orchard 3. Cutting grass and takin care of cattle 4. Selling goods 5. Looking for seed and goods 6. Hired labor (cash or in kind) 7. Rice harvest labor for others (in kind) 8. Rice harvest labor in own diel field

Appendix - 3

23 0 10 4 46 34 19 39 3.5 0 0

16 0 4.5 0 58 29.5 6 0 13 16 4

3 6.5 0 43.5 17 40 7 0 29.5 0 0

0 0 17 42 54 27.5 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 64 41 37 60 6 8 3 0 0

0 0 29.5 4 40 64 11.5 0 38 0 0

0 0 14.5 0 7.5 43.5 9.5 0 40.5 0 0

0 0 1.5 9 31.5 23 3.5 13.5 75.5 0 .5

6 0 0 69 22.5 22 4 5 57 0 0

0 0 10 25 8 51 0 0 46 0 0

0 0 25 17 27.5 63 7.5 5 7 0 0

0 0 29 6 23.5 18 2 0 0 0 0

54 6.5 205 260.5 372.5 475.5 76 70.5 313 16 4.5 2259

2. 8. 11. 15. 19. 3. 2. 13. 1. 100.

Table 4.

Average Labor Use and Yields for Rice Production in Kenep Kampong\A in Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1925/26.
Rice fields before renting to sugarcane \B factories. 31 .41 .13 - 3.14 Rice fields after being used for cane by the \C factories. 39 .33 .16 - 1.39

Items

Number of respondent.\D Size of Operation Average (ha) Range (ha) Seedbed 1. Plowing and harrowing with a. Carabou (male labor) Average (ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Cultivation (male labor) Average (ha) Range (hours/ha) Held Preparation 1. Plowing with a carabou (male labor) Average (ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Harrowing with a carabou (male labor) Average (ha) Range (hours/ha) 3. Pilling in sugarcane ditches (male labor) Average (ha) Range (hours/ha) 4. Repairing bunds(male labor) Average (ha) Range (hours/ha) Transplanting 1. Pulling and distributing seedlings Average male labor (ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Planting seedling a. Average female labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) b. Average child labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) Weeding 1. Average male labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Average female labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 3. Average child labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) Guarding against birds 1. Average male labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Average female labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha)

5. n.a. 21.0 n.a.

10.0 n.a. 82.0\E

79.0 34. - 179. 32. 11. - 67. 0. 0. 302. 147. - 469.

46.0 0. - 98. 19. 0. - 55. 113. 0. - 272. 269. 0. - 441.

149. 67. - 277. 335. 204. - 560. n.a. n.a. 40. 0. - 118. 394. 78. - 1169. 0. 0. 4. 0. - 68. 21. 0. - 589.

115. 30. - 291. 277. 121. - 428. 20. 0. - 70. 40. 0. - 292. 178. 0. - 375. 36. 0. - 169. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Appendix - 4

Items

Rice fields before renting to sugarcane factories.\B

Rice fields after being used for cane by the factories.\C

Harvesting 1. Average male labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Average female labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 3. Average child labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) Total 1. Average male labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 2. Average female labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) 3. Average child labor (hours/ha) Range (hours/ha) TOTAL RANGE Percentage labor use 1. Male (%) 2. Female (%) 3. Child (%) Yield (wet paddy) Average (ton/ha) Range (ton/ha) Paddy (wet) paid to harvesters Average (ton/ha) Range (ton/ha)
Source:

350. 109. - 797. 526. 211. - 1060. n.a. n.a. 982. 1276. n.a. n.a. 2258.

219. 0. - 509. 407. 165. - 822. 87. 0. - 223. 913. 863. n.a. n.a. 1919.

43. 57. n.a. 5.43 2.14 - 7.42 1.08 .43 - 1.48

48. 45. 7. 4.30 3.45 - 5.26 .46 .11 - 73

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

\A \B

Kenep Kampong is in Djoenwangi Desa, Krian Kecamatan, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java. In 1925/26 as it in 1979 the fields in the villages are rotated between rice and sugarcane. The fields when used for rice before renting to the sugar cane factories are called glanggangan. These fields had the cane harvested and the sugar cane factory has returned the fields to the farmerns. These fielde are called dongkelan. Based of information in the paper, there are 64 people who have rights (gogolan) to the communal land. However, some have land in both the before and after sugar cane areas. Usually, in this situation each of the 64 should have land rights in each are. However, because of renting to others there are only 31 farmers in the after sugar cane areas and 39 in the before cane areas. It appears that one gogolan is .128 ha (before renting), .163 ha. after renting, and the amount in cane was not given should be in the proportion of 1/3 : 1/3 : 1/3 which would then approximately .15. Therefore, one gogolan must have been about 44a ha.

\C

\D

\E

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

Appendix - 5

Table 5.

Average labor use in rice production in Kenep Kampong (Djoenwangi village, Krian Kecamatan, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in Wet Season 1925/26.
Rice fields before renting to sugarcane factories. (Glanggangan) 31 .41 .128 - 3.138 Rice fields after being used for cane by the factories. (Dongkelan) 39 .33 .162 - 1.385

Items

Number of respondent. \A Size of Operation Average (ha) Range (ha) Size distribution of operations 0 Number .10 to .19 Number Ave. size (ha) .20 to .39 Number Ave. size (ha) .40 to .59 Number Ave. size (ha) .60 to .79 Number Ave. size (ha) .80 to .99 Number Ave. size (ha) 1.00 + Number Ave. size (ha) Soil Preparation 1. Plowing with a caribou Average male labor (hours/ha). \B Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 2. Harrowing with a caribou Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 3. Filling in sugar cane irrigation ditches Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 4. Harrowing with a caribou Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents

33 11 .13 13 .28 3 .53 1 .62 1 .91 2 2.16

25 22 .17 9 .32 3 .48 2 .68 1 .85 2 1.31

79.0 33.5 - 178.5 31 31.6 11.0 - 67.0 31 0. 0. 0. 302.4 146.8 - 468.5 31

48.5 18.3 - 98.3 37 21.7 7.3 - 55.3 35 118.8 24.0 - 272.0 37 275.8 42.5 - 441.0 38

Appendix - 6

Items

Rice fields before renting to sugarcane factories. (Glanggangan)

Rice fields after being used for cane by the factories. (Dongkelan)

Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings and distributing Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 2. Planting seedlings Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Average child labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Sub total planting Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Weeding Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Average child labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Sub total Average weeding labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Guarding against birds Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Sub total Guarding against bird: Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents

149.0 67.0 - 277.0 31 335.4 203.5 - 560.0 31 0 0 0 335.4 203.5 - 560.0 31

114.8 29.8 - 291.3 39 277.3 120.8 - 427.8 39 33.9 4.8 - 70.3 23 297.3 193 - 445.5 39

45.5 2.8 - 118.0 27 393.8 78.0 - 1169.0 31 0 0 0 433.5 132.8 - 1179.8 31

53.8 6.3 - 292.3 29 182.7 15.3 - 375. 38 56.3 3.0 - 168.5 25 254.1 56.3 - 442. 39

43.3 26.8 - 68.3 3 327.6 66.5 - 588.8 2 261.7 26.8 - 623.5 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix - 7

Items

Rice fields before renting to sugarcane factories. (Glanggangan)

Rice fields after being used for cane by the factories. (Dongkelan)

Harvesting Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Average child labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Sub total Harvesting labor Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Total labor use 1. Average male labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 2. Average female labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 3. Average child labor (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents 4. Total labor use Average (hours/ha). Range (hours/ha) Number or respondents Yield (wet paddy ton/ha) Average Range Number or respondents Paddy paid to harvesters (ton/ha) Average Range Number or respondents

350.3 109.3 - 196.8 31 525.5 211.0 - 1059.8 31 0 0 0 875.8 541. - 1693.5 31

231.1 79.8 - 509.3 37 407.4 165.3 - 822. 39 102.7 11.8 - 233.0 33 713.6 286.0 - 1555.3 39

956.2 31 1275.9 31 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2232.1 31

820.9 39 862.8 39 143.0 39 1826.7 39

5.43 2.141 - 7.42 31

4.30 3.45 - 5.26 39

1.08 .43 - 1.48 30

.46

Sumber:

Same as Table 4 in this appendix. The difference in these table is that in Table 4 we have used the total number of respondents when averaging labor use for each activity. In table 5 we have used the number of respondents who performed the operation, and not the total number.

Appendix - 8

Table 6.

Average labor use for rice production in Sawo village and Karangmalang village in Ngawi dan Jaan village in Berbak District, East Java, in the Wet Season between 1925 and 1929.
Karangmalang Jaan village in Sawo village in village in Ngawi Berbek 1925/26 Ngawi, 1928/29 1926/27
26\A .56 29\B .66 12\C 1.79

Items

Number of respondents Size of operation (ha) Seedbed 1. Plowing with carabou a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 2. Harrowing with carabou a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 3. Spading a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha c. Family (child) male Days/ha Hours/ha 4. Planting of seeds a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 5. Watering a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha Field preparation 1. Plowing with carabou a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha

1.3 2.6 .7 1.2

1.7 5.4 0 0

3.2 6.3 0 0

1.4 1.9 .8 .8

3.4 9.3 0 0

.4 .7 0 0

3.7 10.1 .2 .5 .3 .7

4.2 12.5 0 0 0 0

.9 1.5 0 0 0 0

1.7 1.3 1.0 .8

3.3 1.9 0 0

.7 1.3 0 0

1.4 1.3

0 0

0 0

6.1 17.4

9.5 21.0

10.8 30.9

Appendix - 9

Items

Karangmalang Jaan village in Sawo village in village in Ngawi Berbek 1925/26 Ngawi, 1928/29 1926/27

b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 2. Harrowing with carabou a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 3. Spading a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Family (male) child 1 Days/ha Hours/ha c. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha d. Family female Days/ha Hours/ha Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 2. Distributing seedlings a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha 3. Planting seedlings a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Family female Days/ha Hours/ha c. Hired female Days/ha Hours/ha

3.2 9.6

1.6 5.7

4.8 17.3 2.8 8.2

10.3 21.4 1.7 7.2

28.4 161.9 1.4 4.8 2.8 10.8 0 0

21.3 102.1 0 0 1.6 9.7 0 0

.1 .5 14.8 60.8

3.5 7.7 13.3 88.4

1.0 3.9 2.6 10.5

(incl. with pulling) (incl. with pulling) -

1.5 8.0 1.3 6.3 46.6 224.4

2.4 12.8 2.0 10.3 52.8 289.8

0 0 19.1 67.0 28.0 160.8

Appendix - 10

Items

Karangmalang Jaan village in Sawo village in village in Ngawi Berbek 1925/26 Ngawi, 1928/29 1926/27

Weeding and Irrigating 1. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha 2. Family female Days/ha Hours/ha Harvesting and Transporting a. Family female Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired female Days/ha Hours/ha c. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha d. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha Total Labor Use a. Family male Days/ha Hours/ha b. Hired male Days/ha Hours/ha c. Family female Days/ha Hours/ha d. Hired female Days/ha Hours/ha e. Child (male) family Days/ha Hours/ha Total Days/ha Hours/ha Percentages of labor use 1. Family male Days/ha (%) Hours/ha (%) 2. Hired male Days/ha (%) Hours/ha (%)

5.2 9.9 0 0

5.1 21.2 5.2 21.8

2.0 11.2 1.8 4.2

33.9 247.7 32.1 196.2 0 0 0 0

41.4 262.2 36.5 168.3 15.9 70.6 3.1 24.7

11.3 76.3 96.2 573.4 3.6 21.0 10.0 68.9

56.6 236.1 28.9 103.2 35.2 254. 78.7 420.6 1.7 5.5 199.4 1019.4 (%) 29. 24. 14. 10.

80.6 285.9 21.3 135.7 48.6 294.3 89.3 458.1 0. 0. 239.8 1174.0 (%) 34. 24. 9. 12.

58.7 233.5 15.2 88.1 32.9 149.8 124.2 734.2

231.0 1205.6 (%) 25. 19. 7. 7.

Appendix - 11

Items

Karangmalang Jaan village in Sawo village in village in Ngawi Berbek 1925/26 Ngawi, 1928/29 1926/27

3. Family female Days/ha Hours/ha 4. Hired female Days/ha Hours/ha

(%) (%) (%) (%)

13. 25. 39. 41 (ton/ha) 1.90

20. 25. 37. 39 (ton/ha) 2.19

14. 13. 54. 61 (ton/ha) n.a.

Yields (wet paddy) (ton/ha) Average Harvesters share (bawon) Average

.13

.14

n.a.

Source:

The calculations were made by the author based on information in the Appendices in E. de Vries, R. Alers, and R.M. Soeparja Winotoatmodjo, "Ontleding vau de Tabaksen Rijstcultuur in het Regentschap Ngawi (Java)", Landbouw. V. 1929/30, no. 8, pp. 690, 695, 696.

\A

The report mentioned 28 fields and based on the table in the report it appears there were 26 respondents. The 28 fields cover an area of 14.5 ha. The report states there were 31 fields but since two were combined there are 29 respondents. The 31 fields cover an are of 19 ha. The report stated there were 12 fields and 12 respondents and covers an area of 21.5 ha.

\B

\C

Appendix - 12

Table 7.

Average labor use (hours/ha) in rice production in Djatisari village (Tempeh District, Kabupaten Lumajang, East Java) in the Wet Season 1929/30 and 1930/31. \A
Items Wet Season 1929/30 9 .94 .4 to 1.4 10. 6 11 127 62 26 206 40 200. 467 76 1231 Wet Season 1930/31 25 .83 .5 to 1.4 15. 3 21 156 67 42 216 66 224. 501 68 1377

Number of Respondent Size of operation: Average (ha) Range (ha) Seedbed (hours/ha) 1. Plowing and harrowing 2. Spading 3. Planting seeds Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Plowing and harrowing 2. Spading and preparation for planting Transplanting (hours/ha) 1. Pulling and distribution seedlings 2. Transplanting Water control (hours/ha) Weeding and replacing dead plants (hours/ha) Harvesting (hours/ha) Drying and storing (hours/ha) Total (hours/ha) Percentage labor use: Family Male (%) Female (%) Child (%) Neighbors Male (%) Female (%) Child (%) Hired Male (%) Female (%) Child (%)
Source:
\B

14. 7. 6. 3. 0. 0. 18. 43. 9.

16. 8. 7. 4. 0. 0. 10. 46. 9.

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

\A

These estimates are as presented in Ploeg's paper. However, they are averages of those who responded on each operation and not the total number of respondents which if used for the averages would give different averages. The number of respondents for each operation for the two seasons by first 1929/30 then 1930/31 were Seedbed: Plowing and Harrowing (3,20), Spading (2,20), Planting seeds (3,20); Field Preparation: Plowing and Harrowing (9,25), spading and preparations (9,25); Transplanting: Pulling and distributing seeds (8,19), transplanting (9,25); Water control (9.25); weeding and replacing dead plants (8,25); Harvesting (9,16); and Drying and storing (7,58). The percentages do not include plowing and harrowing with carabou which is male labor, there were:

\B

1929/30 1930/31 Owner 61.2 65 Neighbor 5. 14. Hired 34. 21. it was impossible to combine this with the percentages in the table.

Appendix - 13

Table 8.

Average labor use in rice production in Prijetan village, North Surabaya Residency, East Java, and in Maja village in Cirebon Residency, West Java in 1923 and 1924.
Prijetan Dry Season 1923. (hours/ha)\A Prijetan Dry Season 1924. (hours/ha) Cirebon 1924 Kuningan (hours/ha) Maja (hours/ha)

Item

Field Preparation. \B 1. Plowing with carabou (male labor) Average Range Size of sample 2. Harrowing with carabou (male labor) Average Range Size of sample Total of Plowing and Harrowing with carabou (male labor) Average Range Size of sample 3. Repairing dikes (male labor) Average Range Size of sample Seedbed (male labor) Average Range Size of sample Transplanting 1. Planting seeds and preparation (male labor) Average Range Size of sample 2. Pulling the seedling (male labor) Average Range Size of sample 3. Planting the seedling (female labor) Average Range Size of sample Weeding (female labor) Average Range Size of sample

48 19-86 53 36 6-74 52

70 29-136 43 44 14-89 43

91 57-180 11 35 11-57 9

69 23-116 11 28 11

58 23-143 52 58 13-121 52 -

114 57-216 43 42 7-89 38 -

120 57-270 11 150 29-213 8 88 29-161 10

97 34-143 11 284 43-463 11 74 21-214 11

58 0-120 52 63 10-131 52 261 95-500 52 28\E 0-86 43

91 14-196 38 59 17-204 38 261 96-533 39 -

340 24-743 11 66 57-79 5 284 150-487 11 421 250-600 11

329 129-639 11 66 26-136 10 278 150-371 11 124 84-157 11

Appendix - 14

Item

Prijetan Dry Season 1923. (hours/ha)\A

Prijetan Dry Season 1924. (hours/ha)

Cirebon 1924 Kuningan (hours/ha) Maja (hours/ha)

Harvesting (female labor) Average Range Size of sample Post Harvest Average Range Size of sample Yield of rice (ton/ha) Average Range Size of sample

3.25 2.24-5.63 35

406 214-571 10 1.96 1.12-2.68 11

277 150-379 11 211 36-476 11 2.41 1.72-3.09 11

Source:

M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, Buitenzoegm Indonesia, pp. 225-299. The information in the table has been compiled from throughout this article.

\A |B

Smit's' states that there was sufficient irrigation water for the crops in the dry season 1923. Smits' stated that they did not have sufficient irrigation water in the dry season 1924 and had to use rain water as an additional source. Smits calculated that it required one man working with the carabou. In his report Smits stated that for an area of rice field of 48 bahu for 49 days they used 17 carabou and cattle. Beside this, he mentioned that in his research for a two year period, 66 carabou and sapi were used on 100 bahu rice fields and in 1925 they plowed amd harrowed their fields for a period of 70 days. The maximum number of men for soil preparation was 90 for 1 100 bahu area for 1 /2 months. This is for the Prijetan area. In 1923 the planting season lasted 34 days in Prijetan, and 19 of these days stood out as the most active. The number of women workers during this period varied from 5 to 153 for 50 bahu area of rice yields. In 1924 the planting season lasted 34 days also, though 33 of these days were active. The number of women in 1924 varied from 5 to 164 per day for the 48 bahu rice field are. Based on this information Smits' estimated that a 100 bahu area required 124 women per day for a 33 day planting season. (p-288). In 1923 they average 5.6 hours per day, and in 1924, these women averaged 3.4 hours of planting work per day.

\C \D

\E

Appendix - 15

Table 9.

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

Item

Prijetan Dry Season 1923.

Prijetan Dry Season 1924.

Seedbed (persemaian) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample Soil Preparation. 1. Plowing with carabou or sapi (membajak) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample 2. Harrowing with carabou or sapi (menggaru) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample Total of Plowing and Harrowing with carabou (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample 3. Repairing dikes (male labor) (memperbaiki galangan) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample 4. Spading (memacul) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings (male labor) (mencabut bibit) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample 2. Planting the seedling (female labor) (menanam) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample

61.9 20.-112.5 10

51.5 15.-150. 11

33.3 12-60 53

24.3 4-51 52

58.6 16-100 52

80.1 40.-151. 43

83.5 40.-189. 11

67.9 24.-100. 11

42 -78.3 43 41.3 0.-120. 50

29.6 5.-62.

46.2 0.-149. 11 238. 16.5-520 11

199.0 30.-324. 11 230. 90.-447. 11

62. 10.-137.

45.3 6.6-91.6 51

41.0 12.-143.

199.1 133.5-341 5

203.8 140.-260. 10

175. 66.-350. 52

178. 67.-373.

220. 105.-386. 11

237. 105.-309. 11

Appendix - 16

Item

Prijetan Dry Season 1923.

Prijetan Dry Season 1924.

Maja Kuningan Wet Season Wet Season 1923 or 1923 or 1924 1924

Weeding (female labor) (menyiang) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample Harvesting (panen) (male labor) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample Post Harvest, drying and transport Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample Yield (wer paddy) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Size of sample

19.3 0-60 43

295 175.-420

87 71.-110. 11 194.0 105.-265. 11 114 105.-265 11

284.5 150.400 10

36.8 32

22.0 12.5-30.0 11

26.9 19.3-34.6 11

Source:

Same as Table 8.

Appendix - 17

Table 10. Average labor use in rice production in various locations in Java in 1924 to 1926. \A
Item Seedbed (persemaian) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size First plowing (membajak) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Second plowing Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size First Harrowing Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Second Harrowing (menggaru) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Repairing Dikes (memperbaiki galengan) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Cirebon Semarang Banten Periangan Surabaya Rembang Surakarta Besuki

61 15-150 61 51.3 16-81 25

(Demak)
(dry season) (wet season)

70 28-125 15 41.5 25-71 26 31.6 20-43 16

46
(wet season)

18.3 16-25 6

36.6 25-58 7

34.6 15-87 106 29.0 15-55 176

(wet season)

31.3 17-60 20

46.8 12-81 103 34.0 22-54 51

30 21-45 15 27.3 21-40 15 12.3 6-18 17 29.3 13-47 17

Appendix - 18

19.9 3-63 21

16 9-26 26 14. 9-20 16

1923

27 7-61 59 26.2 8-48 139

dry season 1924

10.4 5-18 10

24.5 16-70 69

48 37-58 6

41 9-78 52

29.6 5-62 43

54 30-96 12

Item Spading (memacul) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Pulling seedling (mencabut bibit) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Planting seedling (menanam) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Weeding (menyiang) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Harvesting (panen, ani-ani) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size

Cirebon

Semarang

Banten

Periangan

Surabaya

Rembang Surakarta

Besuki

84.4 31-230 21
dry season 1923 1925

135 50-200 12

512 375-666 18

46.5 18-95

45.3 6.7-91.7 51 1924

(dry season)

1923
(dry season)

41 15-143 38 1923
(wet season)

19

202 133-341 15 177 61-420 25

Padi bulu Padi cereh

106 67-150 17 251 61-150 17

495 166-936 48

178 n.a. 44

175 n.a. 52

151 43-320 193

217 119-345 13

246 66-480 74

169 125-240 16

270 54-781 88 587 320-1184 25 333 160-500 10 364 212-488 14 321 132-479 19

237 105-400 21

378
200-832 31

221 180-260 6

Item Harvesting (panen, sickle) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Yields (wet paddy, ani-ani) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size Yields (wet paddy, sickels) Average (hours/bahu) Range (hours/bahu) Sample size

Cirebon

Semarang

Banten

Periangan

Surabaya

Rembang Surakarta

Besuki

124 24-210 11

25.1 17.1-34.7 21

26.4 11.8-57.2 48

32.5 12-64.5 31 22.3 8.4-36.4 11

44.7 40-51.4 6

41.5 19.2-69-7 25

32.0 14-55 10

34.7 17.8-47.0 14

44.4 32.0-54.5 19

20
Source:
\A

M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, Buitenzoegm Indonesia, pp. 225-272.

Judging by the information available in this report, Smits had people send him the information continued in this table. After he analyzed the data, he state (p-270) that since there were deficiencies in the data, they would try a different method to analyze labor use. This second method is reporter also in this article and is in table.

Table 11. Comparison of female and combined male/female harvest labor in Semarang Residency in 1924.
Item Simple size Yield (wet paddy pikul/bahu): Average Range Work hours per bahu: Average Range Yield (wet paddy kati per hour): Average Range Only women 5 43.9 32. - 54.5 249 132 - 479 20.6 11 - 33 Men and Women 14 44.7 44.7 - 52.9 346 287 - 392 12.8 9 - 16

Source:

M.B. Smits, "Arbeidsaanwending in den Natted Rijstbouw op Java", Landbouw, I, 1925/26, p-269.

Appendix - 21

Table 12. Average labor use in rice production in Sidomulyo village (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1968/69.
Local and National Improved Rice Varieties (15 respondent with an average size of .25 ha)\A Work days 1. Seedbed Family male Hired male Sub Total Field preparation Family male Hired male Sub Total Transplanting a. Spading Family male Hired male b. Spading Family male Hired male Hired female c. Planting Family male Hired male Sub Total Fertilizing Family male Spraying Family male Hired male Sub Total Weeding Family male Hired male Hired female Sub Total Harvesting Hired male Drying and storing Family male Hired male Sub Total Work hours High Yielding Rice Varieties (30 respondent with an average size of .54 ha)\B Work days Work hours

Item

12 4 16 29 41.3 70.3

48 15.5 63.5 114.1 162.1 276.2

7 6 13 13.2 32 45.2

27 23.2 50.2 53 126 179

2.

3.

4.8 3 4.8 4.8 3 0.5 51.2 72.1 12.8 0.5 0 0.5 10 0.5 84.3 94.8 81 31 0 31

19.2 12 19.2 19.2 5.3 2.1 102.4 179.4 51.2 2.1 0 2.1 39.5 2.1 169 210.6 161.1 123 0 123

3. 3.1 2.4 5 0 0 50 63.5 10.2 0.1 0.7 0.8 5.4 0.7 78 84.1 87 18 2.2 20.2

11 13.3 10 19 0 0 101 154.3 41 0.2 2.7 2.9 21.7 2.7 156 180.4 174 71.4 9 80.4

4. 5.

6.

7. 5.

Appendix - 22

Item

Local and National Improved Rice Varieties (15 respondent with an average size of .25 ha)\A Work days Work hours

High Yielding Rice Varieties (30 respondent with an average size of .54 ha)\B Work days Work hours

Total labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

105.4 53.6 0 219.5 378.5

418.4 210.9 0 437.8 1067.1

59.30 49.7 0 215 324

235.3 195.9 0 431 862.2

28. 14. 0. 58.

39. 20. 0. 41.

18. 15. 0. 67.

27. 23. 0. 50.

Source:

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

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

Appendix - 23

Table 13. Average labor use for rice (local varieties) production in Janti village, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1968/69.
Item No. of respondents Size of operation (ha) Seedbed: Family male Hired male Sub Total Field preparation: Family male Hired male Sub Total Transplanting: Family male Hired male Hired female Sub Total Fertilizing: Family male Hired male Sub Total Spraying: Family male Weeding: Family male Hired female Sub Total Harvesting: Hired female Drying and storing Family male Hired male Hired female Sub Total Total labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female
Source:

Workdays/ha 26 .58 ha

Work hours/ha 26 .58

7.0 9.0 16.0 25.6 67.8 93.4 6.3 8.6 74.1 89.0 12.3 2.5 14.8 .3 1.5 152.2 153.7 97.3 26.3 5.6 .7 32.6 79.3 93.5 0 324.3 497.1 16. 19. 0. 65.

9.8 58.1 1.3 5.8 304.4 310.2 194.7 102.7 22.3 1.3 126.3 309.3 373.5 0 648.5 1331.3 23. 28. 0. 49.

(%) (%) (%) (%)

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

Appendix - 24

Table 14. Average labor use in days and hours per ha by varieties for producing rice in Sidomulyo village, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.
Local and National Improved Varieties (20 respondent with an average size of .19 ha)\A Work days Field preparation 1. Plowing with carabou I Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou I Family male Hired male 3. Plowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 5. Spading Family male Hired male 6. Repairing bunds Family male Hired male Sub Total Family male Hired male Seedbed 1. Spading Family male Hired male Sub Total Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male 2. Planting seedlings Family male Hired male Sub Total Family male Hired male Work hours

Item

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

1.3 4.7 .8 3.3 .5 4.4 .3 1.0 10.4 35.0 8.8 16.3 90.9 22.1 68.0

5.3 14.1 3.2 28.1 2.1 18.1 1.1 4.3 48.6 176.8 41. 82.9 428.8 101.3 329.3

.4 2.5 .5 8.0 .4 2.5 .1 1.1 5.0 28.2 3.6 12.5 65.3 10.0 54.8

1.6 10.0 2.0 32.2 1.6 10.1 .3 4.4 27.1 154.7 18.8 67.8 332.6 51.4 279.2

7.1 6.1 13.2

33.4 31.1 64.5

3.1 4.9 8.

16.7 25.9 42.6

5.0 7.9 2.6 53.2 68.7 7.6 61.1

23.7 41.6 5.8 128.8 199.9 29.9 170.4

2.0 4.5 0 42.8 49.3 2. 47.3

10.0 24.3 0 109.9 144.2 10. 134.2

Appendix - 25

Item

Local and National Improved Varieties (20 respondent with an average size of .19 ha)\A Work days Work hours

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

Fertilizing 1. First application Family male Hired male 2. Second application Family male Hired male 3. Third application Family male Hired male Sub Total Family male Hired male Weeding 1. First weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female 2. Second weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female 3. Third weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Harvesting Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total

4.8 .6 4.2 .6 4.0 .6 13.0 1.8

23.2 3.8 20.0 3.8 18.4 3.8 61.6 11.4

2.5 .8 2.2 .8 2.2 .8 6.9 2.4

13.7 4.7 11.1 4.7 11.0 4.7 35.2 14.1

5.5 0 5.0 54.2 3.2 0 3.2 44.7 0 0 0 7.4 8.7 0 8.2 106.3 .5 25.0 .5 46.6 72.6

27.1 0 10.8 133.3 15.0 0 7.1 100.8 0 0 0 22.1 42.1 0 17.9 256.2 1.3 56.7 1.3 107.0 166.3

.6 0 1.6 47.4 .7 0 1.6 44.4 0 0 0 10.4 1.3 0 3.2 102.2 1.0 12.8 1.9 21.4 37.1

3.2 0 5.0 121. 3.7 0 4.4 113.9 0 0 0 31.1 6.9 0 9.4 266.0 2.1 28.6 3.9 51.9 86.5

Appendix - 26

Item

Local and National Improved Varieties (20 respondent with an average size of .19 ha)\A Work days Work hours

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

5.

Drying and storage Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total Total labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Yields (gabah ton/ha) Average

10.8 3.4 10.8 0 25. 67.2 112.2 22.1 206.1 407.6

53.7 18.4 26.3 0 98.4 317.1 488.5 51.3 492.0 1348.9

3.6 2.4 4.0 0 10. 27.9 81.8 9.1 166.4 285.2

19.1 14.5 9.5 0 43.1 141.4 386.6 22.8 428.8 978.6

(%) (%) (%) (%)

16. 28. 5. 51.

24. 36. 4. 36.

10. 29. 3. 58.

14. 40. 2. 44.

5.00

5.27

Source:

The interview was carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of the dry season 1969. The author has made the above compilation from the original questionnaires.

\A

Eighteen of the respondents planted National improved varieties and two planted local varieties. Their combined size of rice field operation for these varieties was .19 ha and a range of .06 ha to .86 ha. The twenty four respondents who planted IR varieties had an average size of. 45 ha and a range of .05 ha to 3.7 ha.

\B

Appendix - 27

Table 15. Average labor use (hours/ha) for rice production in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in Wet Season 1968/1969.
Local and National Improved Rice Varieties Work days
No. of respondents Size of operation: Average (ha) Range (ha) Seedbed: Family male Hired male Sub Total Field preparation: Family male Hired male

Items

High Yielding Rice Varieties Work days (16) (1.37) (.18-3.5) Work hours (16) (1.37) (.18-3.5)

Work hours (24) (1.0) (.25-3.85)

(26) (1.0) (.25-3.85)

9.9 2.7 12.6 16.2 50.1 66.3

47. 13.5 60.5 73.0 218.0 291.0

6. 6.3 12.3 9.4 49. 58.4

26.0 27.0 53 39. 205.1 244.1

Sub Total Transplanting: 1. Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Sub Total 2. Family male Hired male Hired female Sub Total 3. Planting the seedlings Hired male Hired female Sub Total Fertilizing: Family male Hired male Hired female Sub Total Spraying Family male Weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total

1.9 9.5 11.4 .7 5.5 .1 6.3 1.2 45.2 46.4 3.3 .6 3.9 0 8.8 21. 3.5 48. 81.3

8.5 44.4 52.9 2.7 26 .4 29.1 5.8 196.4 202.2 15.6 3.1 18.7 0 38.3 100.3 13.4 194 346.

.8 9. 9.8 .3 8.3 0. 8.6 12.3 49. 61.3 3.8 1.1 4.9 .1 4.6 73.1 0 26. 103.7

3.1 41.2 44.3 1.3 37.9 0. 39.2 49.3 190. 239.3 16.7 4.6 20.7 .4 18.2 281.2 0 83.5 382.9

Appendix - 28

Items

Local and National Improved Rice Varieties Work days Work hours

High Yielding Rice Varieties Work days Work hours

Harvesting \A Transporting: Family male Drying and storage Family male Hired male Total \B Sub Total Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total
Source:

0.1 4. 3.1 7.1 44.9 3.5 93.7 93.3 235.4

0.4 18. 15.4 33.4 203.5 13.4 426.5 390.8 1034.2

0 3.5 5.7 9.2 28.5 0 164.8 75. 268.3

0 15. 23. 38. 119.1 0 669.3 279.5 1061.9

Based on information the questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey's interviewing of the respondents at the end of the dry season 1968/1969.

\A

The harvest data for the village was not available Does not include harvest labor.

\B

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

Appendix - 29

Table 16. Average labor use per ha by varieties for producing rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.
Item Local and National Improved Varieties\A (14 respondents with an average size of .22 ha) Work days Soil preparation 1. Plowing with carabou I\C Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou I\D Family male Hired male 3. Plowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 5. Spading\E Family male Hired male 6. Improving dikes\F Family male Hired male Sub Total Seedbed 1. Plowing with carabou Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou Family male Hired male 3. Spading Family male Hired male Sub Total Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings Family male Family female Hired male Hired female 2. Planting seedlings Family male Hired male Sub Total Applying fertilizer 1. First application Family male Hired male 2. Second application Family male Hired male Work hours IR Varieties\B (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) Work days Work hours

6.5 8.1 2.9 6.8 0 0 3.2 6.8 28.2 15.9 11 3.6 93 1. 1 0.1 1.3 9.7 3.2 16.3 7.1 0 6.8 3.2 0 51.3 68.4 5.5 0 3.6 0

24.7 24.7 8.8 22.4 0 0 9.7 22.4 126.3 74.7 63.6 15.9 329.9 2.9 2.9 3.6 3.9 41.6 13.6 68.5 29.2 0 31.8 16.2 0 226 303.2 24.7 0 16.2 0

6.9 5.9 9 5.9 1.3 3 3 12.2 13.8 4.3 3.3 62.6 1 0.7 0.10 0 3.9 3 8.7 6.6 0 4.9 6.6 0 39.8 57.9 3.3 0 2 0

26 17.8 8.9 19.7 4.0 0 8.9 10.9 48.7 65.8 18.8 15.8 245.3 3.1 2.1 3.9 0 15.8 14.8 39.7 26.3 0 22.4 32.9 0 167.4 249.0 14.5 0 8.6 0

Appendix - 30

Item 3. Third application Family male Hired male Sub Total Spraying insecticides Family male Hired male Sub Total Weeding 1. First weeding Family male Family female Hired male Hired female 2. Second weeding Family male Family female Hired male Hired female 3. Third weeding Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total Harvesting\G Family female Hired female Sub Total Drying and storing Family male Family female Sub Total Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female (%) (%) (%) (%) Total (%)

Local and National Improved Varieties\A (14 respondents with an average size of .22 ha) Work days 2.3 0 11.4 0 0.3 0.3 12.1 0 18.2 7.5 12.3 0 16.9 5.5 0 1.3 4.5 56.5 135.1 0.6 148.7 148.3 8.8 1.9 10.7 82.6 2.1 69.8 257.8 412.3 20. 1. 16. 63. 100. Work hours 10.7 0 51.6 0 1.3 1.3 50.3 0 60.7 34.7 51.9 0 77.6 26.3 0 5.2 21.4 296.4 597.5 3 643.6 649.6 41.9 7.1 49. 506.1 15.5 373. 1216.2 2110.8 24. 1. 17. 58. 100.

IR Varieties\B (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) Work days 1.3 0 6.6 0 0 0 7.9 0 7.6 6.3 1.3 0 7.2 8.9 0.7 0 2.3 35.9 78.1 0 153 153 6.3 1.3 7.6 60.7 0.7 63.6 267.6 392.6 16. 0. 16. 68. 100. Work hours 5.9 0 29. 0 0 0 32.2 0 30.3 29.9 25.9 0 28.9 36.5 3.3 0 9.2 169.7 365.9 0 667.8 667.8 28.6 4.5 3.1 263.4 4.5 237.7 1114.2 1619.8 16. 0 15. 69. 100.

Source:

The interview was carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of the dry season 1969. The author has made the above compilation from the original questionnaires.

\A

The nuber of respondents who planted local and national improved varieties 14 and their average size of operation was 22 ha.

Appendix - 31

\B

The nuber of respondents who planted IR varieties (probably IR 5 and IR 8) was 8 and their average size of operation was .38 ha. In this village eight of the respondents did not plant rice in this dry season and, the total number of questionnaire were 22. Several of the respondents planted two varieties This is bajak This is garu This is cangkul This is perbaikan galengan The harvesting data from some of the respondents was not complete. Those that had satisfactory information and all used ani-ani were: IR Varieties Area of operation Wowan days (ha) .50 100 .88 150 .125 25 .275 30 .45 76.25

\C

\D

\E

\F

\G

Farmer No. No. 8 No. 7 No. 23 No. 14 Average

Hours per day 4 5 4 4 4.25

Farmer No. No. 14 No. 23 No. 8 No. 17 No. 18 No. 19 Average

National Improved Varieties Area of operation Wowan days (ha) .275 30 .125 20 .50 100 .55 100 .15 20 .35 50 .325 53.3

Hours per day 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.3

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

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

Appendix - 32

Table 17. Average labor use per farm by varieties for producing rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.
Local and National Improved Varieties (14 respondents with an average size of .22 ha) Work days Soil preparation 1. Plowing with carabou I Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou I Family male Hired male 3. Plowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 5. Spading Family male Hired male 6. Improving dikes Family male Hired male Sub Total Seedbed 1. Plowing with carabou Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou Family male Hired male 3. Spading Family male Hired male 4. Pulling seedlings Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total Planting 1. Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Sub Total Work hours IR Varieties (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) Work days Work hours

Item

1.4 1.8 0.6 1.5 0 0 0.7 1.5 6.2 3.5 2.4 0.8 20.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.7 1.6 0 1.5 0.7 7.5 0 11.3 11.3

5.4 5.4 1.9 4.9 0 0 2.1 4.9 27.8 16.4 11.4 3.5 83.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 9.1 3 6.4 0 7 3.6 32. 0 49.7 49.7

2.6 2.3 1.1 2.3 0.5 0 1.1 1.1 4.6 5.3 1.6 1.3 23.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0 1.5 1.1 2.5 0 1.9 2.5 10.6 0 15.1 15.1

9.9 6.8 3.4 7.5 1.5 0 3.4 4.1 18.5 25. 7.1 6 93.2 1.1 0.8 1.5 0 6 5.6 10. 0 8.5 12.5 46. 0 63.6 63.6

Appendix - 33

Item

Local and National Improved Varieties (14 respondents with an average size of .22 ha) Work days Work hours

IR Varieties (8 respondents with an average size of .38 ha) Work days Work hours

Applying fertilizer 1. First application Family male Hired male 2. Second application Family male Hired male 3. Third application Family male Hired male Sub Total Spraying insecticides Family male Hired male Sub Total Weeding 1. First weeding Family male Family female Hired male Hired female 2. Second weeding Family male Family female Hired male Hired female 3. Third weeding Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total Harvesting Family female Hired female Sub Total Drying and storing Family male Family female Sub Total Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female

1.2 0 0.8 0 0.5 0 2.5 0 0.07 0.07 2.6 0 2.9 1.6 2.7 0 3.7 1.2 0 0.3 1 12.5 28.5 0 53.3 53.3 1.9 0.4 2.3 25.1 0.7 19.47 80.6 125.87

5.4 0 3.6 0 2.4 0 11.4 0 0.3 0.3 11.1 0 13.4 7.6 11.4 0 17.1 5.8 0 1.1 4.7 59.3 131.5 0 229.2 229.2 9.2 1.6 10.8 108.6 2.7 82.1 355.2 548.6

1.2 0 0.8 0 0.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 3 0 2.8 2.4 0.5 0 2.8 3.4 0.3 0 0.9 13.6 29.7 0. 76.3 76.3 2.4 0.3 2.7 25. 0.3 22.1 113.3 160.7

5.5 0 3.3 0 2.3 0 11.1 0 0 0 12.3 0 11 11.4 2.3 0 11 13.9 1.3 0 3.5 64.5 131.2 0 324.3 324.3 11. 1. 12. 100.4 1. 89.8 490.2 681.4

Source:

Same as Table 16

Appendix - 34

Table 18. Average labor use in days and in hours per ha by varieties for producing rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Dry Season 1969.
Local and National Improved Varieties (29 respondents with an average size of .45 ha) \A Work days Field preparation 1. Plowing with carabou I Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou I Family male Hired male 3. Plowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 4. Harrowing with carabou II Family male Hired male 5. Spading Family male Hired male 6. Improving dikes Family male Hired male Sub Total Family male Hired male Seedbed 1. Plowing with carabou Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing with carabou Family male Hired male 3. Spading Family male Hired male Sub Total Family male Hired male Transplanting 1. Pulling seedlings Work hours IR Varieties (11 respondents with an average size of .19ha)\B Work days Work hours

Item

3.3 9.7 2.3 5.5 .1 .5 .7 2.5 4.4 26.3 2.3 5.2 63.3 13.6 49.7 .5 .8 .5 .7 4.1 4.2 10.8 5.1 5.7 5.2 9.9 0 .5 0 43.7 59.3 5.2 0 10.4 43.7

9.9 29.2 6.9 16.6 .2 1.5 2.1 8.0 17.9 113.0 11.6 24.1 241. 48.6 192.4 1.4 2.5 1.4 2.2 18.0 18.1 43.6 20.8 22.8 21.4 45.1 0 2.7 0 172.9 242.1 51.4 0 47.8 172.9

3.3 12.4 3.3 7.7 0. .7 1.0 1.0 0. 44.5 0 10.5 327.5 22.9 304.6 1.0 0. 0. 1.4 5.7 3.8 11.9 6.7 5.2 1.4 12.0 0 3.8 0 45.9 63.1 1.4 0 15.8 45.9

10.0 37.3 10.0 23.0 0. 2.2 2.9 2.9 0. 190.9 0. 48.3 327.5 22.9 304.6 2.9 0. 0. 4.3 26.8 16.7 50.7 29.7 21.0 6.2 55.5 0 19.1 0 195.2 276. 6.2 0 74.6 195.2

Family male Hired male

2. Planting seedlings Family male Hired male

Family female Hired female

Sub Total

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Appendix - 35

Item Fertilizing 1. First application Family male Hired male 2. Second application Family male Hired male 3. Third application Family male Hired male Sub Total Family male Hired male Spraying insecticides 1. First application Family male Hired male Sub Total Weeding 1. First weeding

Local and National Improved Varieties (29 respondents with an average size of .45 ha) \A Work days Work hours

IR Varieties (11 respondents with an average size of .19ha)\B Work days Work hours

1.5 .1 1.1 .1 .5 0 3.3 3.1 .2 .3 0 0.3 2.7 18.7 0 7.6 2.4 10.3 0 7.3 0 4.1 0 10.7 63.8 5.1 33.1 0 25.6 0 91 91 2.9 0 2.1 .2 5.2

6.7 .3 4.8 .3 2.4 0 14.5 13.9 .6

3.8 .5 3.8 .5 1.9 0 10.5 9.5 1.0

17.2 1.9 17.2 1.9 9.1 0 47.3 43.5 3.8

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

2. Second weeding

11.0 78.5 0 36.8 9.7 41.8 0 30.7 0 16.6 0 39.1 264.2 20.7 136.9 0 106.6 0 475 475 13.5 0 6.6 .6 20.7

2.4 38.3 0 5.7 2.9 20.1 0 19.6 0 20.1 0 30.1 139.2 5.3 78.5 0 55.4 0 91 91 6.2 0 3.8 1.0 11.0

11.0 157.3 0 28.7 12.9 82.8 0 83.7 0 82.3 0 112.4 573.1 23.9 324.4 0 224.8 0 475 475 29.2 0 14.4 3.8 47.4

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

3. Third weeding

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Sub Total

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Harvesting Family female Hired female\C Sub Total Drying and storing

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Sub Total

Appendix - 36

Item

Local and National Improved Varieties (29 respondents with an average size of .45 ha) \A Work days Work hours

IR Varieties (11 respondents with an average size of .19ha)\B Work days Work hours

Total labor use

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Yield (wet paddy ton.ha) Average Range (%) (%) (%) (%)

35.3 99.1 2.1 160.5 297. 11. 32. 1. 56.

140.4 400.5 6.6 754.5 1302.6 10. 31. 1. 58. 1.65 6.96

37.2 177.3 3.8 192.3 410.6 9. 43. 1. 47.

157.8 728.4 14.4 898.8 1799.4 9. 27.40 1 66.50 4.57 8.32

1.46

3.28

Source:

Field survey carried out by the Agro Economic Survey at the end of the dry season harvest in 1969

\A

Of the 29 respondents, only 8 cultivated national improved varieties and the others cultivated local varieties. The range in size of rice operation was .03 ha to 1.6 ha. The eleven respondents had an average size of IR rice field operation of 19. ha and a range of 0.8 ha .48 ha. Only 20 of the respondents had satisfactory information on harvest labor and since the few who planted HYV's were not reliable on harvest hours, we have used the same average for both Lokal/National improved and HYV's.

\B

\C

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

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

Appendix - 37

Table 19. Labor use in rice production in Geneng village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1970/1971 and Dry Season 1971.
Local and National Improved Varieties (30 respondents with average size of 1 ha) Item Wet Season 1970 Work days 1. Field preparation and seedbed Wet season 1970/71 Family male Hired male 2. Soil preparation between season Dry season 1971 Family male Hired male 3. Transplanting and weeding Wet season 1970/71 Family male Hired male Family female Hired female 4. Harvesting and Post Harvest Activities. Wet Season 1970/71 Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Work hours Dry Season 1971 Work days Work hours

8.5 81.5 0 0 4.4 9. 2. 67.

42.3 406. 0 0 22.2 43. 8. 333.2

7. 79.2 8.4 41. 4.5 10.7 7.3 61.1

33. 396.2 42. 203. 23. 53.5 36.3 305.5

8. 11.2 9. 66.3 20.9 101.7 11. 113.3 266.9 (%) 8. 38. 4. 50. 100.

40. 56.2 45. 331.3 104.5 505.2 53. 664.5 1327.2 (%) 8. 38. 4. 50. 100.

11. 16.3 7. 42.2 30.9 147.2 14.3 103.3 295.7 (%) 10. 50. 5. 35 100.

53.2 82. 34. 211. 151.2 734.7 70.3 516.5 1472.7 (%) 10. 50. 5. 35. 100.

Source:

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which filled in at the end of the Wet Season Harvest in this village.

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

Appendix - 38

Table 20. Labor use in production in Sidomulyo village (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1969/1970.
Local Varieties (18 respondents with average size of .4 ha) Work days Work hours High yielding varieties (24 respondents with average size of .5 ha) Work days Work hours

Item

Seedbed 1. Plowing Family male 2. Harrowing Family male 3. Spading Family male Hired male 4. Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Field preparation 1. Plowing (first) Family male Hired male 2. Harrowing (first) Family male Hired male 3. Plowing (second) Family male Hired male 4. Harrowing (second) Family male Hired male 5. Spading Family male Hired male 6. Preparing bunds Family male Hired male Planting the seedlings Hired female Fertilizing 1. First application Family male Hired male 2. Second application Family male Hired male 3. Third application Family male Hired male

0 0 3.2 2.5 2.5 7.1 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.5 0 2.7 0.1 3.5 5.3 12.1 6. 12. 36. 4.3 1. 48. 1. 4.5 1.

0 0 15.5 12.1 14.4 42. 0.6 12.4 0.4 13. 0 10.4 0.6 0.8 24.4 59. 28.1 56. 105.1 5.4 2. 5.4 2. 5.2 2.

0.04 0.04 2.8 4. 1.7 7.1 0.3 3. 0.3 3.1 0.25 2.35 0.1 0.6 5. 13.4 5.4 13.1 36.25 4. 0.75 4.1 0.5 4. 0.5

0.2 0.2 12.4 17. 10. 42. 1.3 12.1 1.25 12. 1. 9.4 0.3 2. 21. 63. 23.4 61. 105.4 5. 2.25 5. 2.5 6. 2.25

Appendix - 39

Item

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

High yielding varieties (24 respondents with average size of .5 ha) Work days Work hours

Spraying 1. First application Hired male Hired female 2. Second application Hired female Weeding First weeding Family male Family female Hired female Second weeding Family male Family female Hired female Harvesting Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Drying and storing Family male Hired male Family female Total labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male (%) Hired male (%) Family female (%) Hired female (%)

0.3 0 0 2.5 0 7 0.4 0 6.8 0 6 0 8. 11. 0 5.4 88. 52.6 5.4 57.8 203.8 43. 26. 3. 28. 100.

0.3 0 0 3. 0 110 0.8 0 68 0 45 0 133.75 55. 0. 22. 158.6 257. 22. 416.85 854.45 10. 30. 3. 48. 100.

0 0.25 0.25 3. 0.2 5.25 1.4 0.2 5. 0.25 4.3 0.25 6.3 9.1 0.75 5.1 41.78 53.45 5.75 53.3 154.28 43. 26. 3. 28. 100.

0 2 1.25 3.25 0.3 93.4 2.1 0.3 66. 0.25 46.75 0.25 139.75 48. 5.4 19. 128.25 277.65 19.85 407.8 833.55 15. 34. 2. 49. 100.

Source:

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the end of the wet Season harvest in this village.

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

Appendix - 40

Table 21. Labor use (no harvest labor) in rice production in Bulus Pesantren village (Kebumen Kabupaten, Central Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.
Local Varieties (30 respondents with average size of .4 ha) Work days Work hours High yielding varieties (11 respondents with average size of .04 ha) Work days Work hours

Item

Seedbed Family male Hired male Field preparation Family male Hired male Transplanting Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Preparation (mencaplak) Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Planting the seedlings Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Fertilizing Family male Hired male Spraying Insecticide Family male Weeding Family male Hired female \A Harvesting Threshing Family male Hired male Transporting to house Family male Hired male Family female Drying and storing Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

7. 8.25 18. 56.25 2.2 6. 1.4 7. 0 0 1. 0 1. 51.3 4.7 6.1 0.2 12.75 58.25 n.a. 0 0 1.3 5. 0.1 4.2 1.25 5. 0.25

39.5 49.5 101.25 328.5 13.25 34.5 8.5 42. 0 0 3.75 0 2.5 154. 28.25 36.5 1.25 76.5 349.5 n.a. 0 0 8. 28. 0.25 25. 7.5 15. 0.75

40. 1.1 68.2 25. 16. 7. 16. 5. 1.1 5. 6. 3.4 10.2 26.1 31.25 0 0 49. 65 n.a. 1.1 1.1 9.1 7. 0 27.3 0 56.4 0

239. 9.1 409.1 150. 95.5 41. 95.5 27.3 3.4 14. 34.1 20.5 31. 78.4 187.5 0 0 293.2 389. n.a. 7. 7. 55. 41. 0 16.4 0 109.1 0

Appendix - 41

Item

Local Varieties (30 respondents with average size of .4 ha) Work days Work hours

High yielding varieties (11 respondents with average size of .04 ha) Work days Work hours

Total labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

191.35 148.6 6.1 51.55 397.6 (%) 48. 37. 2. 13. 100.

993.75 876. 17.75 154.75 2042.25 (%) 48. 43. 1. 8. 100.

263.95 114.6 139.8 31.1 549.45 (%) 48. 21. 25. 6. 100.

1579.9 684.9 143.5 92.4 2500.7 (%) 63. 27. 2. 4. 100.

Source:

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the end of the wet Season harvest in this village.

\A

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

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

Appendix - 42

Table 22. Average labor use in hours/ha for cultivating rice in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1977/1978.
Items Number of respondent. Size of Operation Average (ha) Range (ha) Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Cutting rice stalks (babat jerami) Family male Hired male 2. Plowing, harrowing and spading Family male Hired male Transplanting (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Weeding and others (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Harvesting (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use (%) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Gemarang 49 .82 .069 - 4.75

16.1 8.9 73.4 161.2 7.8 5.4 34.1 167.7 62.0 17.0 36.5 144.5 5.4 3.6 215.9 58.7 164.7 26.0 483.6 371.1 1045.4 16. 3. 46. 35.

Source:

Calculation by the author based on information from Mr. Soentoro who conducted the field survey for his M.S. thesis in the villages after the harvest in 1978.

Appendix - 43

Table 22a. Labor use in rice production in Serang village (Pemalang Kabupaten, Central Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.
Items Local varieties (19 respondents with average size of .5 ha) Work days Work hours

1.

Seedbed Family male Hired male Family female 2. Field preparation Family male Hired male 3. Transplanting a. Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Family female Hired female b. Other operation (mencaplak) Family male Hired male Family female Hired female c. Planting the seedlings Family male Family female Hired female 4. Fertilizing Family male Hired male 5. Spraying Family male Hired male 6. Weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female 6. Drying and Storing Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total

4. 9. 0.1 5. 56.

24.2 61.5 0.5 33.1 336.

1.1 6. 2.4 10. 1. 6. 2.4 10. 1. 1. 2.4 3. 3.5 1. 3.4 4. 26. 3.4 61.2 3.5 8. 3. 1. 22.7 112.9 14.4 120.2 270.2

7.4 41.3 16.3 67.1 6. 4.4 16.3 86.5 0.7 21. 241.2 17.3 24.3 6. 24. 24.2 179. 23. 424. 24. 56. 20. 7. 142.9 726.5 97.1 825.8 1792.3

Appendix - 44

Items Percentage labor use (%) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total
Source:

Local varieties (19 respondents with average size of .5 ha) Work days Work hours 8. 42. 5. 45. 100. 8 41. 5. 46. 100.

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the end of the wet Season harvest in this village.

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

Appendix - 45

Table 23. Labor use (hours/ha) in rice production in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1977/1978.
Items Number of respondent. Size of Operation Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Cutting stalks Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents 2. Plowing, harrowing and spading Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Transplanting Weeding Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Family female Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired female Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Gemarang 49 0.82 49

18.8 1.3 - 424 42 29.1 2.1 - 16.4 15

114.6 2 - 400 42 195.3 4.7 - 140 45

17.3 3 - 148 22 12.7 2.7 - 24 21 57.6 4.8 - 94.5 29 171.2 12 - 422.2 48

Appendix - 46

Items Weeding Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Family female Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired female Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Harvesting Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Family female Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Hired female Average (ha) Range (ha) No. of respondents Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use (%) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total

Gemarang

67.6 8 - 800 45 67.6 5.2 - 583.3 23 88.9 5.5 - 727.2 35 221.6 36.4 - 377 32

22 5.3 - 88.9 12 17.6 4.2 - 133.3 10 264.5 10.5 - 436.4 40 191.6 21.3 - 1090 15 240.3 290.9 411 584.4 1526.6 16. 19. 27. 38. 100.

Appendix - 47

Table 24. Average labor use (hours/ha) for high yielding rice varieties in Sumokembangsri village (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the 1977/78 Wet Season and the 1978 Dry Season.
Items Number of respondent. Ave. size of operation (ha) 1. Seedbed (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total 2. Field preparation (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total 3. Transplanting (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total 4. Weeding and others cultivation (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total 5. Harvesting (hours/ha) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Sub Total Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use (%) Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total
Source:

Wet Season 1977/78 62 .52 44.7 0 92.0 0 136.7 93.4 0 278.6 0 372.0 35.1 10.2 99.3 214.7 359.3 70.2 30.5 18.8 197.3 316.8 2.6 4.0 250.3 252.8 509.7 246.0 44.7 739. 664.8 1694.5 14. 3. 44. 39. 100.

Dry Season 1978 41 .23 39.7 0 129.0 0 168.7 57.6 0 268.0 0 325.6 16.7 9.6 85.0 204.9 316.2 52.4 21.1 35.6 229.8 338.9 5.3 6.8 253.0 254.0 519.1 171.7 37.5 770.6 688.7 1668.5 11. 2. 46. 41. 100.

Calculation and interviewing by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural University. The author is his major advisor.

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

Appendix - 48

Table 25. Average labor use (hours/ha) for various in rice production in Gemarang village, Ngawi Kabupaten, East Java in the Wet Season 1977/1978.
Items Number of respondent. Size of Operation Average (ha) Range (ha) Field preparation (hours/ha) 1. Cutting stalks Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) 2. Plowing, harrowing spading Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) Transplanting Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) Family female Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired female Average (ha) Range (ha) Weeding Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) Family female Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired female Average (ha) Owner Operator 19 1.1 .18 - 4.78 Share cropper 10 0.8 0.25 - 2.20 Renters 9 0.3 0.07 - 0.63 Mixed Tenure 11 0.8 18 - 3

8.5 0 - 30 13.8 0 - 42 and

15 0 - 22 1.5 0 - 48

67.4 5 - 424 18.1 0 - 164

19.1 3.6 - 36.4 1.1 0 - 56

42 0 - 273 153 0 - 126

129.3 0 - 156 224 0 - 553

111. 0 - 400 86 0 - 51.2

35.1 0 - 237 143.3 0 - 120

3.2 0 - 96 1.8 0 - 27 27. 0 - 50.3 203 12 - 545

2.5 0 - 38 4. 0 - 38 45. 0 -135 116. 114.3 - 141.8

17. 0 - 148 9.6 0 - 36 13.3 0 - 58.2 120. 40 - 192

20.5 0 - 32 14. 0 - 24 48. 0 - 56 142.4 80 - 113.3

49 0 - 66.2 10.4 0 - 125 45 0 - 116 160

47.3 8 - 115.2 3 0 - 56.5 96.3 0 - 560 135

119 48 - 296 60 0 - 342 56.3 0 - 76.8 84.4

87.5 23 - 800 32 0 - 583.3 79.1 0 - 55 134

Appendix - 49

Items Range (ha) Harvesting Family male Average (ha) Range (ha) Family female Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired male Average (ha) Range (ha) Hired female Average (ha) Range (ha) Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total
Source:

Owner Operator 0 - 377

Share cropper 0 - 149.1

Renters 0 - 192

Mixed Tenure 0 - 160

2.8 0 - 10.5 3 0 - 117 169.1 0 - 524 51.2 0 - 73.3 106. 182. 241. 414.2 943.2 (%) 11. 19. 26. 44. 100.

6.3 0 - 24 2 0 - 32 243.3 0 - 256.4 40 0 - 640 200.4 235. 385. 291. 1111.4 (%) 18 21. 35. 26. 100.

12. 0 - 203 2.2 0 - 22 341.5 0 - 660 16.4 0 - 262 326.4 176. 411. 221. 1134.4 (%) 29. 16. 36. 19. 100.

9 0 - 89 7.3 0 - 444 258.3 0 - 600 96.4 0 - 1091 221.2 198. 385.4 373. 1178. (%) 19. 17. 33. 31. 100.

Calculation and interviewing by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural University. The author is his major advisor.

Appendix - 50

Table 26. Average labor use for rice production in Sumokembangsri village, Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java for three plantings in 1978.
Rice corps Items First planting 50 .50 Second planting 36 .33 Third planting 23 .10

Number of respondents Average size of operation Labor use (hours/ha)

Family male Family female Hired male Hired female

Total Percentage labor use

Family male Family female Hired male Hired female (%) (%) (%) (%)

241 772 55 640 1708

204 760 64 633 1661

406 662 53 551 1672

14 45 3 38 100.

12 46 4 38 100.

24 40 3 33 100.

Source:

Field interview survey by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural University.

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

Appendix - 51

Table 27. Average of rice production for three crops (seasons) in Sumokembangsri village, Sidoarjo, East Java in 1977 and 1978.
Item Crop Season I Wet Season 1977/1978 50 24,954 0.499 226 55 15 745 640 27
Total

Crop Season II Dry Season 1978 36 11,864 0.330 195 64 9 727 633 33 1661 53,656 37

Crop Season III Dry Season 1978 23 2,219 0.10 395 53 11 628 551 34 1672

1. 2. 3. 4.

Number of respondents Area of rice cultivated Average size of rice operation (ha) Family labor use:
Male Female Carabou

5.

Hired labor use:

Male Female Carabou

1708 54,199 38,841 5.99 1.23 4.76 291,624 31,923 166,661

6. 7. 8. 9.

Wages paid to hired laborers (not harvest) Cost of other production inputs (Rp./ha) Gross yield (ton/ha) Harvest paid in kind (ton/ha)

10. Net yield (ton/ha) 11. Value of net yields (Rp./ha) 12. Cost of renting, sharecropping and irrigation (Rp./ha) 13. Net return per ha (Rp./ha)
Source:

Field interview survey by Mr. Soentoro for his M.S. thesis at Bogor Agricultural University.

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

Appendix - 52

Table 28a. Quantity and Value of the Principal Articles Exported from the Netherlands - Indie to Foreign Countries on Private Account in each of the Undermentioned years.
Rice Cleaned 1875: Quantity (kg) Value (f) f/kg 1880: Quantity (kg) Value (f) f/kg 1884: Quantity (kg) Value (f) f/kg 1893 Quantity (kg) Value (f) f/kg 7,967,523 957,309 .120 9,436,901 1,132,428 .12 11,390,447 1,139,045 .10 29,819,667 2,981,967 .10 Uncleaned 220,474 11,024 .050 7,229,155 361,458 .050 6,555,770 327,788 .050 2,211,844 110,592 .050

Source:

Price of rice and wages (The Financial of Economical Condition of the Netherlands Indies since 1870 and the Effect of the Present Currency Systems) by N.P. van den Berg, Late President of the Java Bank and President of the Netherlands Bank, Third Edition, The Hague, Printed for the members of the Netherlands Economical and Statistical society 1895, 46 p., supplement II (Memorandum of the Present State of the Currency Question in Holland and Java; Batavia, 1879, by N.P. van den Berg, Batavia, 24th June 1879, Supplement II (Note on the present working condition of the Gold standard in Java by Mr. A. Kensington, Deputy Secretary to the Government of st India in the Financial Department, 21 September 1892), Appendix A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L.

Appendix - 53

Table 28b. Wholesale Prices of Export Articles Rice (f per coyan)

January 1871 72 73 74 .12 75 76 77 78 79 .12 80 81 82 83 .10 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 .10 93 94 95
Source:

April 157.5 172.5 225 210 172 167.5 205 200 180 205 187.5 185 150 157.5 137.5 127.5 112.5 117.5 120 n.a. 157.5 180 n.a. n.a. 105

July 155 215 207 205 182.5 177.5 185 225 197.5 200 197.5 187.5 170 132. 122.5 115 105 102.5 130 170 160 185 143 135 115

October 160 217 210 170 172.5 158 210 230 205 195 195 180 165 132.5 135 112.5 105 115 n.a. 150 162.5 142.5 132.5 125 -

Ave.

160 165 230 215 162.5 172.5 225 215 220 215 195 190 160 167.5 132.5 120 117.5 115 137.5 152.5 162.5 185 162.5 n.a. 110

Same as Table 28a.

Appendix - 54

Table 28c. Rates of wages of coolies (laborers) and handicraftment (skilled laborers). (50 = 50 cents per day)\A
1874 Batavia laborers Wage (cents/day) Wage in kg rice Semarang laborers Wage (cents/day) Wage in kg rice Surabaya laborers Wage (cents/day) Wage in kg rice Preanger laborers Wage (cents/day) Wage in kg rice Surakarta laborers Wage (cents/day) Wage in kg rice Pasuran laborers Wage (cents/day) Wage in kg rice
Soruce:
\A

1879 50 10 40 to 75 8 to 15 35 to 60 7 to 12 15 to 30 3 to 6 30 to 50 6 to 10 30 to 50 6 to 10

1884 50 to 100 10 to 20 25 to 60 5 to 12 35 to 60 7 to 12 20 to 25 4 to 5 30 to 60 6 to 12 25 to 70 5 to 14

1889 20 to 100 4 to 20 50 to 150 10 to 30 40 to 50 8 to 10 20 to 30 4 to 6 30 to 35 6 to 7 25 to 40 5 to 8

1893 20 to 10 4 to 2 15 to 40 3 to 8 35 to 50 7 to 10 20 to 4 to 25 to 5 to 50 to 10 to

50 10 40 to 50 8 to 10 30 to 80 6 to 16 20 to 25 4 to 5 30 to 60 6 to 12 30 to 60 6 to 10

Same as Table 28a.

This uses the price of uncleaned rice (beras) from Appendix G to convert to kg which was 5 cents per kg.

Appendix - 55

Table 29. Rice yields in Dry paddy (pikul/bahu) in 1921 and an average of the 1916 to 1920 period in Java.
Location (Residency or Kabupatens) Cirebon Semarang Madiun Surabaya Surabaya Kabupaten Sidoarjo Kabupaten Mojokerto Jombang Gresik Lamongan Kediri Kediri Kabupaten Tulungagung Brebeg Blitar Java and Madura
Source:

1921 (dry paddy) Pikul/bahu 21.84 17.27 16.95 20.10 16.12 26.47 20.86 24.06 15.26 14.71 24.19 23.06 27.19 19.35 26.76 19.10 Ton/ha 1.95 1.54 1.51 1.79 1.44 2.36 1.56 2.15 1.36 1.31 2.16 2.06 2.43 1.73 2.39 1.70

Average of 1916 to and including 1920 Pikul/bahu 24.78 20.13 22.03 25.49 19.35 35.07 29.04 33.94 20.89 16.16 26.67 32.37 30.85 25.51 29.38 24.92 Ton/ha 2.21 1.80 1.97 2.28 1.73 3.13 2.59 3.03 1.86 1.44 2.38 2.89 2.75 2.28 2.62 2.22

Rijst: Eenige bijzonderkeden over cultuur Bewerking Verbruik, Invoer, Uitvoer en Handel, met een marktover zicht over de Jaaren 1911-1922, Uitgave van den Denst der Belastingen, Landsdukkerij, Weltevreden, 1923, Appendix 12.

Appendix - 56

Table 30. Rice Production in 1921

Area of cultivated land (bahu) Location No. of farmers 325,499 324,428 717,975 464,331 1,109,135 93,036 460,223 94,958 820,953 72,868 479,169 135,090 598,905 183,291 84,555 675,473 114,186 Area in (ha) 107,859 138,451 346,961 221,080 286,997 32,904 191,956 29,667 289,155 20,390 113,823 45,001 162,777 62,856 33,987 190,763 46,243 Rice in sawah which was harvested Total area of sawah harvested (ha) Total dry paddy in (ton) 169,517 181,890 637,666 551,843 677,056 92,713 377,141 65,839 395,138 51,632 262,030 133,869 362,268 123,763 79,932 299,929 68,524 Dry paddy yield for harvested area (ton/ha) 1969 1881 1982 1953 2313 2312 2152 1906 1542 2123 2021 1988 1912 2463 2302 1858 1622 Dry paddy yield for area planted (ton/ha) 1627 1363 1765 1204 2299 2297 2021 1869 1980 2069 1948 1983 1897 2444 2296 1847 1291

Area of sawah which had a good yield (ha)

Area of sawah which had a poor yield (ha) 20,973 437,859 46,512 82,477 1,912 242 12,037 715 36,648 655 15458 169 1,508 426 120 1,260 8,317

Bantam Regency Krawang Kabupaten Batavia Residency Cirebon Residency Preager Residency Pemalang Kabupaten Pekalongan Residency Kendal Kabupaten Semarang Residency Banjoemas Kabupaten Banjoemas Residency Keboemen Kabupaten Kedoe Residency Djokjakarta Residency Klaten Kabupaten Soerakarta Residency Ngawi Kabupaten

23,222 88,999 314,693 116,215 292,560 40,114 174,654 34,516 250,646 24,301 129,070 67,327 189,412 50,225 34,707 161,121 40,853

104,195 133,458 361,206 198,692 294,472 40,356 186,691 35,230 286,288 24,956 427,527 67,496 190,920 50,651 34,827 162,381 49,253

Appendix - 57

Area of cultivated land (bahu) Location No. of farmers 591,088 4,378,038 65,312 106,115 535,042 575,209 543,997 105,458 655,183 176,467 459,660 2,769,091 9,764,069 Area in (ha) 154,110 1,381,434 32,076 49,582 262,016 77,612 147,774 18,886 141,575 50,101 120,165 749,141 3,093,471

Area of sawah which had a good yield (ha)

Area of sawah which had a poor yield (ha) 25,206 124,905 2,252 17,413 110,554 16,437 32,920 599 4,686 105 5,427 170,024 446,802

Rice in sawah which was harvested Total area of sawah harvested (ha) Total dry paddy in (ton) 201,408 2,255,013 60,688 3,906 276,405 72,489 212,145 46,510 292,031 151,967 331,202 1,184,272 5,162,867 Dry paddy yield for harvested area (ton/ha) 1513 1777 2363 2148 1795 1194 2160 2792 2442 3042 2954 2192 1960 Dry paddy yield for area planted (ton/ha) 1301 1636 2208 1488 1115 974 1654 2704 2346 3036 2820 1710 1704

Madioen Residency Central Java Sidoardjo Kabupaten Djombang Kabupaten Soerabaja Residency Madoera Residency Kediri Residency Loemadjang Kabupaten Pesoeroean Residency Djember Kabupaten Basuki Residency East Java Java and Madura

129,665 1,253,890 25,234 27,087 137,264 57,956 95,393 16,651 119,843 49,955 112,025 522,480 2,583,062

154,870 1,378,796 27,486 44,500 247,818 74,395 128,313 17,249 124,529 50,060 117,452 692,504 3,029,864

58

Source:

Rijst: Eenige bijzonderkeden over cultuur Bewerking Verbruik, Invoer, Uitvoer en Handel, met een marktover zicht over de Jaaren 1911-1922, Uitgave van den Denst der Belastingen, Landsdukkerij, Weltevreden, 1923

Table 31. Labor use (hours/ha) in rice Production in Ngrowo District, East Java in 1875/76. \A
Labor use when carabou was used (hours/ha) n.a. Labor use when carabou not used (hours/ha) n.a.

Item

1. Pepairing and deepening the irrigation canals 2. Seedbed Plowing Spading Repairing bunds Spading after plowing Second spading First harrowing Breaking up dirt clods First Bencak Smoothening the talud Second harrowing Second Becak Third harrowing Planting the seeds Building a fence around the seedbed Guarding and water management Sub total 3. Soil Preparation Plowing Spading (memacul) Repairing bunds Spading after plowing Second spading First harrowing (menggaru) Breaking up dirt clods First Bencak Smoothening the talud Second harrowing Second Bencak Third harrowing Sub total 4. Transplanting Pulling the seedlings, tying in bundles and carrying to the field Planting the seedlings Sub total

3. 0. 2. 5. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 17. 20. n.a. 52. 60. 0. 49. 120. 143. 24. 47. 0. 24. 24. 0. 24. 515. 26. 204. 230.

0. 10. 2. 0. 6. 0. 0. 3. 1. 0. 3. 0. 6. 20. n.a. 51. 0. 237. 49. 0. 0. 0. 0. 71. 24. 0. 60. 0. 411. 21. 204. 225.

Appendix - 59

Item

Labor use when carabou was used (hours/ha) 204. 300. n.a. 286. 200. n.a. 1787.

Labor use when carabou not used (hours/ha) 204. 300. n.a. 286. 200. n.a. 1707.

5. Weeding 6. Guarding the field and building the guard house 7. Water management 8. Harvesting 9. Post Harvest guarding and other operation including string 10. Transport to owner's house Total labor use
Soruce:

J.N.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Rapport over de Padi- Cultuur in de Afdeeling Ngrowo (1875/76), Batavia, 1887, pp. 271-274.

\A

These estimates are for an operation of .7 ha n.a. = not available

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

Appendix - 60

Table 32. Labor use in rice production in Banyutowo village (Kendal Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.
Items Local varieties (21 respondents with average size of .65 ha) Work days Work hours 1.4 13. 2. 39. 1.3 14.2 1. 11. 0.1 4. 1.5 31. 2.2 4. 6.4 1.5 83.3 1. 5.1 68.2 3. 4. 0.2 18.9 172.5 2.7 104.3 298.4 6. 68. 1. 35. 100. 8.4 76. 11.1 225. 8. 86. 4.4 65. 0.4 23. 7.3 165. 13.3 23.3 39. 9. 501.4 5. 31. 355. 18. 22. 1.1 111.6 1021.7 13.4 551. 1697.7 7. 60. 1. 32. 100.

1.

Seedbed Family male Hired male 2. Field preparation Family male Hired male 3. Transplanting - Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male - Other planting operation Family male Hired male - Planting the seedlings Family male Hired male Family female Hired female 4. Fertilizing Family male Hired male 5. Spraying Family male 6. Weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female 7. Weeding Hired female 8. Drying and Storing Family male Hired male Family female Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male (%) Family female (%) Hired male (%) Hired female (%) Total
WAS TYPED.

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

Appendix - 61

Table 33. Labor use in rice production for an .7 ha operation in Pekundan village, Ngrowo District (Blitar Kabupaten), East Java in 1875/76.
Item 1. Seedbed Plowing with carabou Harrowing with carabou Hand labor work Watering and planting seeds Building fence around seedbed 2. Field Preparation Repairing dam and irrigation canals Plowing with carabou Repairing bunds Spading along the field edges First harrowing with carabou Second harrowing with carabou Cleaning the talud Third harrowing with carabou 3. Transplanting: Pulling the seedlings and carrying to the field Planting the seedlings 4. Cultivation: First weeding Guarding, repairing bunds, and water management 5. Harvest and Post harvest: Harvesting Tying the bundles of paddy, drying, and water management 6. Total labor use
Soruce:

Work days/ha\A

Work hours/ha\B

2.9 2.9 5.7 1.4 2.1 2.9 28.6 10.0 10.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 35.7 28.6 14.3

12. 12. 40. 10. 15. 20. 114. 70. 70. 28. 28. 50. 28. 50 250. 200. 100.

85.7 17.1 283.4

600. 120. 1817.

J.N.F. Sollewijn Gelpke, Rapport over de Padi- Cultuur in de Afdeeling Ngrowo (1875/76), Appendix B (Question asked of the villagers and carrying out of crop cuttings as reported by the Assistant Resident Kroessen, in Blitar, East java, August 30, 1876), pp. 329-332.

\A

In the appendix the writer gave the following additional information: 1. The average from size was 400 to 500 R.R. which converts to 1.14 to 1.43 ha. 2. Their fields suffered a lack of water for almost the entire crop period. 3. Paying a wage to the laborers is not common. They would give them one meal. 4. The cost of renting a pair of carabou for one day was 4 amet(?) of paddy or f30 for one year. 5. The share (bawon) of the harvest was 1/4 for those who transplanted the seedlings and were given the opportunity to harvest the field. 6. They sell some of their rice to get cash for the items they must purchase. Therefore, they do not have enough rice from their own fields for their consumption for a year. If they did not sell some of their rice, then they would have a sufficient amount. 7. They work outside of their own farms to make up the shortages of rice.

Appendix - 62

8. Their normal yields in dry paddy were 2.6 ton/ha to 2.9 per ha. They gave the following conversion factors for 1 gedeng of rice: wet paddy = 15 dry paddy = 11 1 paddy without stalk = 10 /4 beras =7
\B

The information was given in workdays per bahu which is .7 ha and the author converted it to hectares. In this Appendix, he stated that one work day of hand labor was 7 hours and one work day with a carabou was 4 hours. The author has used these estimates to convert the workdays to work hours.

\C

Appendix - 63

Table 34. Labor use in rice production in Waranat village (Pemalang Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.
Items Local varieties (35 respondents with average size of 1.3 ha) Work days Work hours 1. 6.2 0.04 0.02 7.26 1. 56. 57. 0.3 0.5 14. 0.3 0.2 0.4 16.5 0.3 0.4 18.2 51.1 0.4 2.1 2.5 0.4 1.2 1.6 1.5 26. 0.5 53. 81 0.1 1. 9.2 0.5 1.2 11.9 8. 131. 2.3 264. 405.3 0.3 5. 46.5 2.3 6.2 60. 4.4 31. 0.2 0.1 35.7 5.1 265.2 270.3 2. 2.5 67.3 2. 1.1 2. 82.3 2. 2.1 91.5 254.8 2. 10.3 12.3

1.

Seedbed Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total Field preparation Family male Hired male Sub Total Transplanting - Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Hired female - Mencaplak Family male Hired male Family female Hired female - Planting the seedlings Family male Hired male Hired female Sub Total Fertilizing Family male Hired male Sub Total Spraying Family male Hired male Sub Total Weeding Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total Weeding Family female Drying and Storing Family male Hired male Family female Hired female Sub Total

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

Appendix - 64

Items

Local varieties (35 respondents with average size of 1.3 ha) Work days Work hours 6.2 100.9 2.44 102.92 212.46 3. 47.4 1.2 48.4 100. 32.5 491.2 11.7 511.4 1046.8 3. 47. 1. 49. 100.

Total labor use Family male Family female Hired male Hired female Total Percentage labor use Family male (%) Family female (%) Hired male (%) Hired female (%) Total
Source:

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the Wet Season harvest in this village.

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

Appendix - 65

Table 35. Labor use in rice production in Djanti village, (Sidoarjo Kabupaten, East Java) in the Wet Season 1969/1970.
Local Varieties (27 respondents with average size of .5 ha) Work days 1. Field preparation - Plowing I Family male Hired male - Harrowing I Family male Hired male - Plowing II Hired male - Harrowing II Family male Hired male - Spading Family male Hired male - Repairing bunds Family male Hired male Sub Total 2. Seedbed - Plowing Family male Hired male - Harrowing with carabou Family male Hired male - Spading Family male Hired male - Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male Sub Total 3. Planting seedlings Work hours High Yielding Varieties (2 respondents with an average size of .2 ha) Work days Work hours

Item

1.5 6. 1.3 5.1 1. 0.5 0.5 5. 9.3 5. 9.3 44.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 6.4 6. 4.4 10.2 28.4 5.3 5. 5. 2.4 12.4

2.4 8. 2.2 8.3 1. 1. 1. 15. 50. 13. 51.5 151.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 11.1 10.3 7. 29. 58.6 79.4 6.2 6.3 3.3 15.8

0 20 0 15 0 0 0 0 12.5 0 25. 72.5 0 0 0 0 12.5 12.5 0 25. 50 15. 7.5 10 10 27.5

0 20 0 15 0 0 0 0 50. 0 50. 135. 0 0 0 0 25. 12.5 0 50. 87.5 150. 7.5 10 10 27.5

Hired female
4. Fertilizing - First application Family male - Second application Family male - Third application Family male Sub Total

Appendix - 66

Item 5. Weeding - First weeding

Local Varieties (27 respondents with average size of .5 ha) Work days Work hours

High Yielding Varieties (2 respondents with an average size of .2 ha) Work days Work hours

Family male Family female Hired female

- Second weeding

0.1 0.1 5.3 0.2 0.1 5.3 11.1 5.5 7. 12.5 8.4 1.3 9.7 46. 53.5 0.2 24.2 123.9 37.1 43.2 0.2 19.5 100.

0.3 0.3 101. 0.4 0.3 68.3 170.6 28.2 86. 114.2 28.4 4. 32.4 95. 188.1 0.6 338.7 622.4 15.3 30.2 0.1 54.4 100.

0 0 7.5 0 0 15. 22.5 7.5 7.5 15. 25. 20. 45. 65. 117.5 0 65. 247.5 26.3 47.4 0 26.3 100.

0 0 60. 0 0 97.5 157.5 37.5 37.5 75 50. 40. 90. 102.5 235. 0 385. 722.5 14.2 32.5 0. 53.3 100.

Family male Family female Hired female

Sub Total 6. Harvesting Family female Hired female Sub Total 7. Drying and storing

Family male Hired female

Sub Total Total labor use

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female (%) (%) (%) (%)

Source:

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the Wet Season harvest in this village.

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

Appendix - 67

Table 36. Labor use in rice production in Sukorejo Lor village, (Banyumas Kabupaten, Central Java) in the Wet Season 1968/1969.
Local Varieties (26 respondents with average size of 1 ha) Work days 1. Field preparation Family male Hired male Sub Total 2. Seedbed Family male Hired male Sub Total Work hours High Yielding Varieties (1 respondents with average size of 1.7 ha) Work days Work hours

Item

0.3 7.2 7.5 0.1 42. 42.1

2. 44.1 46.1 1. 253.5 254.5

0. 9. 9. 0 39.4 39.4

0 53 53 0 236.5 236.5

3. Transplanting - Pulling seedlings Family male Hired male - Mencaplak Family male Hired male Hired female - Planting the seedlings Hired male Hired female
Sub Total 4. Fertilizing Family male Hired male Sub Total 5. Spraying

0.1 8 0.2 4.2 1.5 0.3 25.3 39.6 0.3 2.4 2.7 0.1 2. 2.1 1.5 38.3 10.3 50.1 2 18.3 20.3 0.1 4.4 4.5 1. 8.4 9.4

1. 48.1 1. 25.3 9.2 2. 113. 199.6 2.1 15.1 17.1 0.5 11. 11.5 9. 236 66 311. 14. 77. 91. 1 26.5 27.5 5.5 52.3 57.8

0 34.1 0 31 0 0 29.4 94.5 0 5.3 5.3 0 2.3 2.3 0 29.4 0 29.4 0 29.4 29.4 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

0 205 0 184 0 0 176.5 565.5 0 32 32 0 14.1 14.1 0 176.5 0 176.5 0 176.5 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Family male Hired male

Sub Total 6. Weeding - First weeding

Family male Family female Hired female

Sub Total 7. Harvesting Family female Hired female Sub Total 8. Transporting Family female Hired female Sub Total 9. Drying and storing

Family male Hired female

Sub Total

Appendix - 68

Item

Local Varieties (26 respondents with average size of 1 ha) Work days Work hours

High Yielding Varieties (1 respondents with average size of 1.7 ha) Work days Work hours

Total labor use

Family male Hired male Family female Hired female

Total Percentage labor use Family male Hired male Family female Hired female (%) (%) (%) (%)

4. 119.2 0. 55.4 178.6 2. 67. 0. 31. 100.

23.1 727.8 0 265.2 1016.1 2. 72. 0. 26. 100.

0 150.5 0 58.8 209.3 0 72. 0. 28. 100.

0 901.1 0 353 1234.1 0 72. 0. 28. 100.

Source:

The author made these calculation based on the interview questionnaires of the Agro Economic Survey which were filled in at the end of the Wet Season harvest in this village.

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

Appendix - 69