Page 31 - Ranah Studi Agraria: Penguasaan Tanah dan Hubungan Agraris

Ranah Studi Agraria

(Pincus 1996: 48). Like Hart, the key factors in Pincus’ alterna-
tive model are class power, relative bargaining power, and the
struggles between contending classes (Pincus 1996: 136-7).
Where did Gunawan Wiradi and the SAE researchers place

(or find) themselves in these theoretical debates, which on the
whole have been dominated by foreign scholars? The SAE’s
own major synthesis volume Prospek Pembangunan Ekonomi
Pedesaan Indonesia (Faisal Kasryno ed. 1984), based on re-
studies in 1981-1982 of the SAE sample villages in West, Cen-
tral and East Java and South Sulawesi conducted with the sup-
port of USAID, shows a variety of perspectives in the various
chapters, representing the different viewpoints of the SAE re-
searchers themselves. Faisal Kasryno, an agricultural econo-
mist, relies firmly on the “induced (institutional) innovation”
theories of Binswanger and Ruttan and Hayami and Kikuchi in
the analytical framework provided in Chapter 3, but is himself
critical of the declining shares of labour in the division of agri-
cultural incomes in Chapter VI. Gunawan Wiradi and Makali in
the Chapter on land tenure and agrarian institutions (repro-
duced in the present volume as Chapter V) take a rather diffe-
rent perspective, including some of the neo-populist arguments
but also referring to a process of agrarian “class differentia-

tion” in the Javanese countryside and implicitly distancing
themselves from the Hayami et al. approach. Issues of agrarian
differentiation and class formation were again discussed in
more detail in a further analysis of the same SAE re-study date
from 9 villages in West, Central and East Java in White and
Wiradi’s (1989) contribution to the book on Agrarian Transfor-
mations: Local Processes and the State in Southeast Asia

xxx