N E W G U I N E A R E S E A R C H B U L L E T I N M.P 1471111 .... ' �· ,o • 2• �o 0 N'DROWA IS nvnr'llv;;, IS I TILUA.NO �. M'BU KE IS·. LO� . ., .. IP ANDREW IS , ......,.,..IYIVUI' I. SALUAN ISMARCK SE A PURDY IS .. Cl/ & 311. GEOG.OEPt.UPNG Figure 1 Admiralty Islands� New Guinea NEW GUINEA RE SEARCH BULLETIN Number 43 LANGANDROWA AND M ' BUKE , CORPORATE INDIGENOUS PLANTATIONS A.M. McGregor December 1971 Pub lished by the New Guinea Research Unit , The Austra lian Nat ional University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra , A.C.T. and P.O. Box 1238, Boroko , Papua New Guinea The Austral ian Nationa l University 1971 @) This work is copyright . Apart from any fair deal ing for the purpose of private study , research , criticism, or review , as permitted under the Copyr ight Act , no part may be repr oduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be made to the pub lisher Printed and manufactured in Austra lia by Allans Printers , Canberra Nationa l Library of Australia card no. and ISBN 0 858 007 3 Library of Congress Catalog card no .77-187068 THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Research School of Pacific Studies New Guinea Research Unit Editor , New Guinea Research Bulletin Marion W. Ward Editoria l assistant Sandra van Nuffel The New Guinea Re search Unit is part of the Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, and is based in Port Moresby. The work of the Unit is guided by an advisory committee responsib le to the Director of the School, Professor O.H.K . Spate , who is the chairman . The other members of the committee are : W. C. Clarke , Departme nt of Human Geography J.W. Davidson , Department of Pacific History A.L. Epstein, Department of Anthropology and Socio logy E.K. Fisk, Departme nt of Economics J. Golson, Department of Prehistory Ma rie Rea y, Department of Anthropology and Sociol ogy R.T. Shand , Department of Economics Marion W. Ward, New Guinea Research Unit A representative of the academic staff of the Unit Foreword This study of Langandrowa and M ' buke plantations contains two themes which are of relevance to many Pacific Islands. The first is the re­ settleme nt of people from islands which are too isolated , infertile or overpopulated on lands which offer them greater potent ial for economic or other advantage . In both cases studied by McGregor , no ma jor migra­ tion was required and the settlers took over land formerly farmed by foreign planters. The second theme concerns the forms of organisation such resettlement might take. One of the examples in this study was organised as a formal co-operative , the other as a very informa l community enterprise which the people concerned refer to as a ' business ' . Its organisation, never­ theless, differs substantially from that of expatriate commercia l enterprises, from strictly communa l (for example , Kibbutz-type) organi­ sations , and from tradit iona l precedent s. It appears to be a tentative and uncertain , exploratory attempt which shows similarities in particular aspects with all three . It is an ama lgam of the limited skills and precedents availab le to the community and, whatever the eventual outcome of the enterprise , is und oubtedly an important learning experience . One feature which emerges from these studies , and from many others , is that different forms of organisat ion may best suit different stages of the resettlement programme. This is seldom provided for in practice both the settlers and the governme nt or other agency usually plan for a particular form from the beginning . Obviously any plan will differ wit h the degree of homogeneity of the settlers , the crop produced, and various other factors . Nevertheless, it seems that a high degree of centralisa­ tion may be des irable in the early years, with a steady rate of decentralisation as the major infrastructure is developed and capital assets acquired , land cleared and planted , homes built , social and psycho logical security in the new envir onment achieved , differentiation in skills increased , and interests of individual settlers widened. These are processes which take many years, perhaps even a generation or more . Resett lement usually involves going onto someone else ' s land ; the M ' buke case reported in McGregor ' s study is an exception. Sometimes initial permission is difficult to ob tain , but the prob lem of ma intain­ ing that permission is usua lly overlooked in the first place , and is much the more difficult prob lem in the long run. Any land title is secure in the legal sense only as long as the law is enforced and not vii viii changed , and in the practical sense only insofar as it is respected by others. Both prob lems have been widespread in resettlement in the Pacific. A resettled community, then , needs a strong pa tron Colonia l governments do not necessarily last long enough to have the resettled commu nity accepted as the rightful landowners or occupie rs. The most effective resettlements seem to have been those in which the settlers had no choice - where some ca lamity or for ce beyond their control gave them no option but to go, and to stay in their new loca­ tion. l Obviously, the greater the advantages of the new envir onme nt over the old , the more likely people are to settle happily ; but it is clear that this relative advantage does not have to be so much real as perceived. This is why pe ople resettled compu lsorily (or what they later consider to have been compulsorily) by governments have seldom been happy , even when they are materia lly much better off or have the potential resources to be much better off . 2 In such cases where an opportunity to return exists , ma ny people hanker after it , even when by materia l criteria they would be better off where they are . This greatly hinders the process of harmonious resettlement and lead s to serious tensions in the resettled community. 3 The two styles of leadership des crfbed in McGregor ' s study differ ma rkedly from each other , even though the Mouk and M ' buke people have the same culture. The more democratic one appears at this stage to be the less effective. Every resettlement depends on effe ctive leadership . Some times this comes from within the group (a� in both the se studies) , For example , the resett lement of Gilbertese in the Phoenix Islands (Maud e 1968:315-42) and the Solomons (Knud son 1964 and Stuart 1968) , and of Kapingamarangi people on Ponape in the Caroline Islands (Lieber 1968) , all due to serious overpopulation and acute shortage of resources ; and the resettlement near Vila in the New Hebrides of the refugees from a volcanic eruption (Tonkinson 1968) . 2 For example , the resettlement of Bikini people on Kili (Kiste 1968) and Ocean Isla nders on Ramb i (Silverman 197 1) . Among those who moved on their own initiative are Ell ice Islanders from Va itupu to Kioa (White 1965) and Tongans to Fiji at Vanua Balave (A.P. and P.J. Le ssin 1971). The Kioa resettlement was failing and the peop le planning to return to Vaitupu when the initia tor of it , Neli Lifuka , gave up his paid emp loy­ ment elsewhere and devoted the rest of his life to estab lishing a succes sful settleme nt in the new environment. The fact that he had been res ponsible for the original decision was perhaps the main factor in its survival.. 3 A partial exception is the Tikopia resettlement in the Rus sell Islands (Larson 1966) , which seems to be an examp le of close and effectiv e co­ opera tion between the people and government , and which has continuing links to the home island. ix and somet ime s from a religious leader or government officia l in asso­ ciat ion with local leaders. l Internal leadership is usually helped by external hostility or lack of acceptance , and for this reason the early need for internal cohesion is at times in conflict with the longer term need to integrate with the surround ing population. Litt le research ha s been undertaken on the form of organisat ion which ha s been assoc iated with highest productivity in resettled communities in the Pacific. Perhaps the clearest point is that almost all resettle­ ments have been vastly more expensive than even the mo st generous estimates have predicted. Secondly, the productivity of the resettled farmers has in all cases known to me been much lower than they, and the governments who supported them, hoped for. Thirdly , resett lement of the new community has taken much longer than has been expected. Resettle­ ment is a slow process and an expensive one. If a set of traditiona l practices (for example , those relating to farming methods) is going to be changed , the time of resettleme nt is an appropriate moment. Nevertheless, the time required is still consider­ ab le. The trans ition from subsistence farming to the structured discipline of indus tria l emp l oyment is much easier than that from sub­ sistence farming· to fully commercial farming. Mu ch greater changes are needed in the shift to commercial agriculture , though this is often not apparent to either the resettled community or to others; yet the sup­ porting structure to facilitate these changes is very much weaker. Both communities stud ied by McGregor are mat erially much better off as a result of the resettlement than they were previously, but ne ither one has yet ach ieved anything like its full production potent ial.