RURAL WOUS PIO03ECT Ie Soclo-Economic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RURAL WOUS PIO03ECT Ie PADAT KAYA GAYA BMU Soclo-Economic Assessmnt (Based on Materials from 1977 Evaluation Prepared for Rural Works II PP) by Dr. Ferdinand E. Okada USAID/Indonosia IWarch, 1978 Rural Works Project Padat Karya Gaya Baru Soclo-Economic Assessment Pane I. Introduction 1 A. Background 1 B. Methodology and Objectives 2 II. Socio-Cultural Environment 3 A. Strong Supportive Village Structure 3 B. Labor Force 5 C. Status Symbols and Values 6 D. Attitude Toward Maintenance 6 III. The Beneficiaries 7 A. Definition 7 B. Location 8 C. Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious Affiliations 8 D. Magnitude 9 E. Characteristics 10 IV. Direct Social Consequence and Benefit Incidence 14 A. Direct Cash Benefit 14 B. Rise in Agricultural Production and Income 16 C. Rise in Food Production 18 D. Increase in Agricultural Employment 18 E. Direct Benefits from Road Subprojects 18 F. Direct Benefits Arising from an Interaction of Factors 20 G. Attitudinal Changes in a Traditional Society 24 V. Conclusion 25 Appendix I 26 Appendix II 27 Rural Works Project Padat Karya,Caya Baru Socio-Economic Assessment I. Introduction The Socio-Economic Assessment of the Rural Works Project (Padat Karya Gaya Baru) is an expansion o2 the Benefits and Beneficiaries section of Evaluation 1977 (December 1977) and was prepared primarily for the Rural Works IT Project Paper. The evaluation data has been supplemented by additional indepth observation of several PKGB subprojects. A. Background USAID/Indonesia in 1975 began its support of the Padat Karya Gaya Baru (PKGB), labor intensive rural works program, of the Department of Manpower, Ministry of Manpower, Transmigration and Cooperatives. USAID limited this support to 50 subprojects located in 39 rural subdistricts (kecamatan) in five provinces of Indonesia. The 1977-1978 phase of the Rural Works Project is comprised of 358 subprojects located in 350 subdistricts dispersed over 18 of Indonesia's 27 provinces. Ten of these subprojects are concerned with land terracing and regreening, 100 with irrigation and flood control and 248 with rural roads (See Appendix I). These projects comprise the PKGB regular program as distinct from effective but ad hoc subprojects carried out in response to crisis situation arising from natural disasters and other emergencies which suddenly and drastically affect socio-economic conditions within a given area. The numbers of regular subprojects planned for Rural Works II are: IFY No. of Subprojects 1978/1979 480 1979/1980 500 1980/1981 500 Total 1,480 2 As with Rural Works I, Rural Works II will be executed by the Department of Manpower (DMP) headquartered in Jakarta under the Director General of Manpower Development and Utilization. This project is carried out through a network of Provincial Manpower Offices under each of which are a varying number of Manpower District Offices. They, in turn,' are responsible for manpower projects in at least one kabu paten and often two or more. The Project is more decentralized than is immediately apparent since great reliance is placed on officials at the district, subdistrict and even village (desa) levels for the selection and actual execution of a subproject. These officials, for example, include a village development worker (Tenaga Ahli Pedesaan or TAP) from the Department of Manpower who supervises the day-to-day implementation of a subproject. Provincial Manpower Offices have the authority to disapprove applications for subprojects from villages and subdistricts within their purview. Much cooperative and coordinative activity also occurs at the local levels without continual reference to DMP Jakarta once final approval is given to a subproject. Because of this reliance on the existent framework at provincial and lower levels, no new organization is necessary to carry out an expanded program. On the other hand, the successful execution of a given subproject depends a great deal on the priority given it by local officials and on their technical and administrative capability to carry out the plan and design approved by DMP/Jakarta. Emphasis in Rural Works II will be placed on qualitative improvement of the selected subprojects rather than an accelerated quantitativeorareal expansion. B. Methodology and Objectives This socio-economic assessment is based on the results of an October 1977 field survey of 34 (20%) of the 169 subdistricts in which 1976-1977 subprojects were located and on further first-hand observations of past and present subprojects. The field survey was executed by 24 TAPs provided by the Department of Manpower. Under a stratified sampling plan they covered 18 road subprojects, 14 water (including one reservoir) and two regreening. In percentage terms, these projects represented those found in the 169 subdistricts both in geographical distribution and subproject type. Approximately 1,200 people were interviewed, the majority in structured situations, and 827 of them were heads-of-household in the beneficiary villages. The remainder were GOI officers of relevant technical depart ments, field supervisors of the projects and local government, including 3 village level, officials. Essentially, therefore, this analysis based on primary and empirical is data from 34 subprojects which been extrapolated, as necessary, have only for the 358 in the 1977-1978 phase of the Project. No extrapolations have been made for Rural Works II in specific terms since, except of for qualitative improvement subprojects and in benefits, no drastic departures from Rural Works I are planned for the regular program. Technical and administrative aspects of the subprojects studied by the field teams, were also but this particular assessment focusses only on: a. The socio-cultural context in which the Project is executed. b. The beneficiaries, both direct and indirect, in terms of selected characteristics, location and numbers. c. The Project benefits, both immediate and as spread effects. They are delineated in terms of the subprojects evaluation of the 1976-1977 but it is expected that conclusions directly applicable drawn from them are to Rural Works II despite its careful both in area and in numbers expansion of subprojects. As shown in Appendix no new types of subprojects I, have been added in 1977-1978 nor one subproject been expanded has any beyond the limits already experienced this is the and pattern envisaged for Rural Works II. II. Socio-Cultural Environment The socio-cultural environment of Indonesia is receptive of the Rural Works Project because of the factors which follow. A. Strong Supportive Village Structure 1. The Village Headman (Lurah or Kepala Desa) The basic organization through mentioned previously, which this Project works, as is the Department of Manpower which in Jakarta with subsidiary is headquartered offices at least in each relevant the Provincial Manpower Offices province. Under are DMPDistrict Officeslhich cover one kabupatens. In theory, and or more often in actuality, requests for subprojects from the village are channelled through the subdistrict head (camat) to the 4 district head (bupati) who, in turn, makes contact with the Manpower Office. With the formalization of the request through completion of attendant paper work, the Provincial Manpower Office has the authority to disapprove requests while sending forward the approved ones to Jakarta. Normally these requests are discussed at, and across, various levels and technical officers from various departments (Irrigation, Public Works, Agriculture, etc.) at the district level are drawn in. On occasion, initiative may be taken at levels outside the village with strong suggestions passed down the line that a request be made. Whether passing village requests up or strong outside suggestions down, the key link in the hierarchal chain is the village headman. He reflects and represents village opinion as reached by a consensus of heads of kinship units and other influential people of the village. But he may occasionally have the unenviable task of persuading his villagers to accept an unpopular decision concerning them in which they have not participated or, indeed, may have rejected. In the last analysis his success as a headman depends on the way he satisfies both his supervisors and his villagers and the burden of any scheme directly affecting his village falls on him. The headman's office is occasionally a large room in his own house, more often it is a separate building which is not infrequently partitioned by bamboo dividers into such areas, labelled in English, as "Conference Room" and "Operation Room" (sic.). He may have a "Data Bank" in which are village social, economic and demograhic records, collected from and by his subordinates who are often a mixture of traditional and modern types: subvillage heads, village secretary, advisor on religious (Islamic) matters, irrigation controller, agricultural officer, planning officer and so on. 2. Decision-making at the village level. Of the 34 subprojects studied, requests for 23 were initiated at the village level, often originating from a concensus reached at a formal assembly of heads of kinship units (kepala kelompok), influential people (e.g. the professional, modern and traditional; the educated; the good farmer, the elders) and village officials, including officers of the Lembaga Sosial Desa - the Village Social Development Organization. The greater-or-lesser involvement in decision-making by village people in 27 out of the 34 instances is shown below. Furtherrmre, laborers on subprojects are often selected by village officials on the basis of need from registries which identify the poorer of their peoples. In one 5 village in Central Java, anybody who owned land was excluded from working on a subproject canal. Table 1: Level on Which Initiative Was Taken for Subproject Request Level No. of Subprojects Village 23 Village and subdistrict (lurah and camat) 4 Subdistrict (Camat) 4 Subdistrict and district (camat and bupati) I Province (Planning Office) 1 Other (The Army) 1 34 B. Labor Force 1. Availability of Labor As indicated previously, labor is under-utilized in Indonesia. At the subproject sites, almost all the laborers were either unemployed or underemployed for at least four to six months out of the year.