Accessibility and development in rural Sarawak. A case study of the Baleh river basin, Kapit District, Sarawak, Malaysia. Regina Garai Abdullah A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand i Abstract To what degree does accessibility to markets correlate with levels of development? This is an important question for those living in remote, underdeveloped parts of Southeast Asia during the final phases of de-agrarianisation. My study recounts the experience of rural-based Iban households living in the Baleh river basin of the Kapit District (population of 54,200) within a day or less travel by river to the small market town of Kapit (with a population of 18,000). With no connecting roads to the rest of Sarawak and reliant almost entirely on river transport, the local economy remains underdeveloped and is losing population. My field work among 20 villages in three accessibility zones of the Baleh river basin was undertaken over the three month period of May-July 2014. Structured interviews were conducted with 20 village headmen (tuai rumah), 82 heads of household, and 82 individuals within the households. Data was also systematically collected on 153 other individuals, including both residents and non-resident members of these bilik-families. My conceptual framework draws on von Thünen’s model of agricultural land use in order to generate expectations about the possible effects of market accessibility. While the sale of vegetables and other commodities accords with expected patterns, most rural households are in fact dependent on other, largely non-agricultural sources of income. As a result there has emerged a disjuncture between the nominal and actual residence as those working age family members with residential rights to the bilik undertake paid work well beyond the agricultural margin. Unable to achieve desired standards of living by accessing local markets and services in a division with no cities or roads, the working age members of the bilik sustain their families by dividing their residence between two or more locations in what I call multi-local living. The income of nominally rural households is being increasingly determined by the human capital that individuals now apply to non-agricultural labour markets. This, in turn, is leading to a widening distribution of levels of ‘development’, across individuals, their multi-generational families and their rural communities. Multi-local living is unsustainable beyond the transitional phase of de-agrarianisation and as labour shifts out of agriculture and people move to towns, connections with rural residence are likely to diminish, notwithstanding the cultural ties, and disputes over realising market values of largely untitled land will continue to complicate the transition. ii Acknowledgements My three and a half year journey as a PhD student has been one of the most intense, yet memorable parts of my life so far, and I owe a debt of gratitude to the following people for helping me throughout this journey. An enormous gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Philip Morrison, who has been there with me throughout this entire journey. Thank you for the faith you have in me when I first applied for the programme, for your unwavering support, encouragement, calm presence when I am panicking, and endless questions that made me think critically about my work. I could not have asked for a more dedicated, understanding and supportive supervisor. Many utmost gratitude to all my participants – thank you for your time and patience in dealing with me. My time with you has been a learning curve for me. Mr Meringai, Madam Jamayah and Aya Masing and their respective families – thank you for all your help and guidance. You all went out of your way to help me and for that I will forever be grateful. My cousin, Bobby Kinyang and his family, thank you for hosting me when I was in Kapit and introducing me to everyone. You have made my stay very comfortable – a home away from home, and even took time to accompany me when I visited the longhouses. My friends in New Zealand, Malaysia and Europe – distance does not matter as we have proved over the last three years. All of you have been with me throughout this journey regardless of our geographical distance. You have shared my ups and downs, my moments of panics, my joy and excitement. As I said in this thesis, technologies make distance irrelevant! Liz, Fendi and Ita – thanks for listening and always cheering me on. Sayang korang! Jimmie sisters – where do I even begin with you girls: thank you for the crazy, memorable moments, sharing my burdens, and picking me up when I was down. I know I can totally depend on the three of you. A debt of gratitude to Rashidah Bolhassan for introducing me to my Jimmie’s sisters as well as being my shoulders to cry on. My friends who (were forced to) read my initial drafts of the thesis – thank you for making time to read my numerous draft chapters and providing feedback: Anita, Kiky, Lynette, Denise, Geo, Dr M, and Shu. A massive thank you to Sandra Koenigseder for helping me with the maps. iii I would also like to thank Pedram – the best officemate ever! I have been lucky to share an office with someone who is always positive and pushes me to do my best at all times. Thank you for the motivational speeches, the inspiring quotes on our office whiteboard, and the endless supply of food and audio books. I would also like to acknowledge the support from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak and the Ministry of Higher Education for my scholarship. My greatest thank you is reserved for my family – thank you for being there and always believing in me. Your unfailing support humbled me. One of the things that kept me going is remembering how my dad had to leave his home at a young age to get an education. This thesis is dedicated to my dad – my number one supporter from day one! iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Preface ix Glossary xii List of Figures xvi List of Maps xviii List of Photographs xix List of Tables xx 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Development and accessibility ………………………………………………… 2 1.2 Exploring the accessibility-development relationship …………………………. 3 1.3 Sarawak: History and development issues ……………………………………… 4 1.3.1 Historical and political background …………………………………………… 7 1.3.2 Socio-economic development of Sarawak ………………………………….. 9 1.4 Baleh river basin, Kapit District, Sarawak ……………………………………… 16 1.4.1 Accessibility in Baleh ………………………………………………….. 21 1.4.2 Socio-economic context ………………………………………………….. 23 1.4.3 Iban: community, bilik-family and kinship ………………………………… 29 1.4.3.1 The cultural context ………………………………………………….. 30 1.4.4 Iban and multi-local living practice ……………………………………… 31 1.5 Future development in Baleh river basin ……………………………………………….. 34 1.6 Thesis structure ……………………………………………………………………………. 39 2.0 Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………………………… 43 2.1 Concepts of development ………………………………………………………………. 44 2.1.1 Measuring development ………………………………………………….. 47 2.1.1.1 Human capital and education as development indicators 48 2.1.1.2 Basic needs as a development indicator ……………. 51 2.1.1.3 Diversification as development indicator ……………. 52 2.1.1.4 Subjective measures of development ………………………… 53 2.2 Understanding accessibility …………………………………………………. 54 2.2.1 Definitions of accessibility …………………………………………………. 54 2.2.2 Contemporary accessibility …………………………………………………. 56 v 2.3 Accessibility to market and rural development …………………………………….. 59 2.4 De-agrarianisation …………………………………………………………………………… 61 2.4.1 Preconception of rural-ness ………………………………………………….. 63 2.4.2 De-agrarianisation and multi-local living ………………………… 64 2.4.3 Education and de-agrarianisation …………………………………….. 68 2.4.4 De-agrarianisation and inequality …………………………………….. 69 2.5 Summary …………………………………………………………………………… 71 3.0 Conceptual Framework …………………………………………………………………………… 75 3.1 The von Thünen land use model ………………………………………………………………. 76 3.1.1 Effects of changes in prices and cost …………………………………….. 78 3.2 Extensions of the model ……………………………………………………………… 81 3.2.1 Multiple transport modes …………………………………………………. 82 3.2.2 More than one market …………………………………………………. 84 3.2.3 Land ownership ……………………………………………………………… 86 3.3 Relationship between development and accessibility ……………………….. 86 3.4 Summary ………………………………………………………………………….. 88 4.0 Research Design and Methodology ………………………………………………………………. 89 4.1 Research design ……………………………………………………………………………. 89 4.2 Case study area: selection method ………………………………………………….. 90 4.2.1 Unit of analysis ……………………………………………………………….. 93 4.3 Data preparation and analysis ……………………………………………………………….. 94 4.3.1 Tuai rumah dataset ……………………………………………………………….. 95 4.3.2 Bilik-family dataset ……………………………………………………………….. 97 4.3.3 Individual dataset ……………………………………………………………….. 98 4.3.4 Bilik-member dataset ……………………………………………………………….. 98 4.3.5 Handling missing data ……………………………………………………………….. 98 4.3.6 Subjective responses to measuring accessibility and development 100 4.4 Survey instruments ……………………………………………………………….. 100 4.4.1 Negotiating the cultural maze …………………………………………………… 103 4.4.2 Informed consent and confidentiality ………………………………………. 105 4.5 Measuring development and accessibility ……………………………………… 106 4.5.1 Physical development indicators ……………………………………… 107 4.5.2 Income indicators ………………………………………………………………. 109 4.5.3 Personal (individual) development indicators