Page 367 - Ranah Studi Agraria: Penguasaan Tanah dan Hubungan Agraris

Ranah Studi Agraria

leave many gaps. Second, the inclusion of nine villages, while
allowing more detailed analysis at community level than large-
scale sample surveys, does not permit the depth of intensive
single-village studies such as those of Hüsken and Anan Gan-
2
3
janapan, particularly with regard to qualitative material. While
participant observation, informal interviews, and the writing
of field notes have been a regular feature of the Agro Econo-
mic Survey’s field research alongside questionnaire surveys
in both periods, much of this qualitative information has not
been preserved. Third, the sampling procedures differed in
the baseline and resurvey studies, so that comparisons over
time must be treated with caution. Furthermore, we are deal-
I)
ing with two ‘time-slice’ studies separated by ten years rather
than a systematic long term study involving regular monitor-
ing of changes; while it is possible to identify many changes
during this period, it is rarely possible to document precisely
when, why, or how they have occurred.
Given the data at our disposal, our analysis is restricted to
the economic rather than the political, social, and ideological
aspects of agrarian change. We first examine changes in paddy
production and in the ways in which paddy incomes are dis-
tributed among the different landholding and landless classes;

although many of the villages show a high degree of economic
diversification, paddy is still the largest single source of in-
comes in all villages, with paddy incomes representing about
two-thirds of all agricultural incomes and more than one-fifth

2 Cf. Hüsken in Hart et. al. ibid. Chapter 14.
3 Cf. Ganjanapan in Hart et. al. ibid. Chapter 5.

298