Dual economy adalah keberadaan dua sektor ekonomi secara terpisah di dalam satu negara, dipisahkan oleh dari perbedaan tingkat pembangunan, teknologi dan perbedaan pola dari permintaan. Model ini diciptakan oleh Julius Herman Boeke untuk menggambarkan keberadaan sektor ekonomi modern dan tradisional di dalam ekonomi kolonial.

Dual ekonomi biasanya berada di dalam negara berkembang dimana satu sektor sebagai roda penggerak dan sektor lainnya untuk pasar ekspor global. Dual economies may exist within the same sector, for example a modern plantation or other commercial agricultural entity operating in the midst of traditional cropping systems. Sir Arthur Lewis used the concept of a dualistic economy as the basis of his labour supply theory of rural-urban migration. Lewis distinguished between a low-income, rural, subsistence sector with surplus population, and an expanding urban capitalist sector. The urban economy absorbed labour from rural areas (holding down urban wages) until the rural surplus was exhausted.[1]

A World Bank comparison of sectoral growth in Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana and Zimbabwe since 1965 provided evidence against the existence of a basic dual economy model. The research implied that a positive link existed between growth in industry and growth in agriculture. The authors argued that for maximum economic growth, policymakers should have focused on agriculture and services as well as industrial development.

an economy where both technically advanced and technically primitive sectors exist, as in developing countries where advanced technology is applied to extracting minerals or manufacturing while at the same time large parts of the country exist at subsistence level

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/dual-economy.html#ixzz27MbdTAl6

The dual-sector model is a model in developmental economics. It is commonly known as the Lewis model after its inventor Sir William Arthur Lewis, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1979. It explains the growth of a developing economy in terms of a labour transition between two sectors, the capitalist sector and the subsistence sector.

History

Initially the dual-sector model as given by W.A Lewis was enumerated in his article entitled "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor" written in 1954 by Sir Arthur Lewis, the model itself was named in Lewis's honor. First published in The Manchester School in May 1954, the article and the subsequent model were instrumental in laying the foundation for the field of Developmental economics. The article itself has been characterized by some as the most influential contribution to the establishment of the discipline.

Assumptions

1. The model assumes that a developing economy has a surplus of unproductive labor in the agricultural sector.2. These workers are attracted to the growing manufacturing sector where higher wages are offered.3. It also assumes that the wages in the manufacturing sector are more or less fixed.4. Entrepreneurs in the manufacturing sector make profit because they charge a price above the fixed wage rate.5. The model assumes that these profits will be reinvested in the business in the form of fixed capital.6. An advanced manufacturing sector means an economy has moved from a traditional to an industrialized one.

Theory

W.A Lewis divided the economy of an underdeveloped country into 2 sectors:

[edit] The capitalist sector

Lewis defined this sector as "that part of the economy which uses reproducible capital and pays capitalists thereof". The use of capital is controlled by the capitalists, who hire the services of labor. It includes manufacturing, plantations, mines etc. The capitalist sector may be private or public.

[edit] The Subsistence Sector

This sector was defined by him as "that part of the economy which is not using reproducible capital. It can also be adjusted as the indigenous traditional sector or the "self employed sector". The per head output is comparatively lower in this sector and this is because it is not fructified with capital. The "Dual Sector Model" is a theory of development in which surplus labor from traditional agricultural sector is transferred to the modern industrial sector whose growth over time absorbs the surplus labor, promotes industrialization and stimulates sustained development. In the model, the subsistence agricultural sector is typically characterized by low wages, an abundance of labour, and low productivity through a labour intensive production process. In contrast, the capitalist manufacturing sector is defined by higher wage rates as compared to the subsistence sector, higher marginal productivity, and a demand for more workers. Also, the capitalist sector is assumed to use a production process that is capital intensive, so investment and capital formation in the manufacturing sector are possible over time as capitalists' profits are reinvested in the capital stock. Improvement in the marginal productivity of labour in the agricultural sector is assumed to be a low priority as the hypothetical developing nation's investment is going towards the physical capital stock in the manufacturing sector.

[edit] Relationship between the two sectors

The primary relationship between the two sectors is that when the capitalist sector expands, it extracts or draws labor from the subsistence sector. This causes the output per head of laborers who move from the subsistence sector to the capitalist sector to increase. Since Lewis in his model considers overpopulated labor surplus economies he assumes that the supply of unskilled labor to the capitalist sector is unlimited. This gives rise to the possibility of creating new industries and expanding existing ones at the existing wage rate. A large portion of the unlimited supply of labor consists of those who are in disguised unemployment in agriculture and in other over-manned occupations such as domestic services casual jobs, petty retail trading. Lewis also accounts for two other factors that cause an increase in the supply of unskilled labor, they are women in the household and population growth.

The agricultural sector has a limited amount of land to cultivate, the marginal product of an additional farmer is assumed to be zero as the law of diminishing marginal returns has run its course due to the fixed input, land. As a result, the agricultural sector has a quantity of farm workers that are not contributing to agricultural output since their marginal productivities are zero. This group of farmers that is not producing any output is termed surplus labour since this cohort could be moved to another sector with no effect on agricultural output. (The term surplus labour here is not being used in a Marxist context and only refers to the unproductive workers in the agricultural sector.) Therefore, due to the wage differential between the capitalist and subsistence sector, workers will tend to transition from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector over time to reap the reward of higher wages. However even though the marginal product of labor is zero, it still shares a part in the total product and receives approximately the average product.

If a quantity of workers moves from the subsistence to the capitalist sector equal to the quantity of surplus labour in the subsistence sector, regardless of who actually transfers, general welfare and productivity will improve. Total agricultural product will remain unchanged while total industrial product increases due to the addition of labour, but the additional labour also drives down marginal productivity and wages in the manufacturing sector. Over time as this transition continues to take place and investment results in increases in the capital stock, the marginal productivity of workers in the manufacturing will be driven up by capital formation and driven down by additional workers entering the manufacturing sector. Eventually, the wage rates of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors will equalize as workers leave the agriculture sector for the manufacturing sector, increasing marginal productivity and wages in agriculture whilst driving down productivity and wages in manufacturing.

The end result of this transition process is that the agricultural wage equals the manufacturing wage, the agricultural marginal product of labour equals the manufacturing marginal product of labour, and no further manufacturing sector enlargement takes place as workers no longer have a monetary incentive to transition.[2]

[edit] Surplus labor and the growth of the economy

Surplus labor can be used instead of capital in the creation of new industrial investment projects, or it can be channeled into nascent industries, which are labor intensive in their early stages. Such growth does not raise the value of the subsistence wage, because the supply of labor exceeds the demand at that wage, and rising production via improved labor techniques has the effect of lowering the capital coefficient. Although labor is assumed to be in surplus, it is mainly unskilled. This inhibits growth since technical progress necessary for growth requires skilled labor. But should there be a labor surplus and a modest capital, this bottleneck can be broken through the provision of training and education facilities. The utility of unlimited supplies of labor to growth objectives depends upon the amount of capital available at the same time. Should there be surplus labor, agriculture will derive no productive use from it, so a transfer to a non agriculture sector will be of mutual benefit. It provides jobs to the agrarian population and reduces the burden of population from land. Industry now obtains its labor. Labor must be encouraged to move to increase productivity in agriculture. To start such a movement, the capitalist sector will have to pay a compensatory payment determined by the wage rate which people can earn outside their present sector, plus a set of other which include the cost of living in the new sector and changes in the level of profits in the existing sector. The margin capitalists may have to pay is as much as 30 per cent above the average subsistence wage, WW1 in figure which represents the capitalist sector is shown by N; OW is the industrial wage. Given the profit maximization assumption, employment of labor within the industrial sector is given by the point where marginal product is equal to the rate of wages, i.e. OM.

Since the wages in the capitalist sector depend on the earnings of the subsistence sector, capitalists would like to keep down productivity/wages in the subsistence sector, so that the capitalist sector may expand at a fixed wage. In the capitalist sector labor is employed up to the point where its marginal product equals wage, since a capitalist employer would be reducing his surplus if he paid labor more than he received for what is produced. But this need not be true in subsistence agriculture as wages could be equal to average product or the level of subsistence. The total product labor ONPM is divided between the payments to labor in the form of wages,

OWPM, and the capitalist surplus, NPW. The growth of the capitalist sector and the rate of labor absorption from the subsistence sector depends on the use made of capitalist surplus. When the surplus is reinvested, the total product of labor will rise. The marginal product line shifts upwards tot the right, that is to N1. Assuming wages are constant, the industrial sector now provides more employment. Hence employment rises by MM1. The amount of capitalist surplus goes up from WNP to WN1P'. This amount can now be reinvested and the process will be repeated and all the surplus labor would eventually be exhausted. When all the surplus labor in the subsistence sector has been attracted into the capitalist sector, wages in the subsistence sector will begin to rise, shifting the terms of trade in favor of agriculture, and causing wages in the capitalist sector to rise. Capital accumulation has caught up with the population and there is no longer scope for development from the initial source, i.e. unlimited supplies of labor. When all the surplus labor is exhausted, the supply of labor to the industrial sector becomes less than perfectly elastic. It is now in the interests of producers in the subsistence sector to compete for labor as the agricultural sector has become fully commercialized. It is the increase in the share of profits in the capitalist sector which ensures that labor surplus is continuously utilized and eventually exhausted. Real wages will tend to rise along with increases in productivity and the economy will enter into a stage of self-sustaining growth with a consistent nature. [3]

[edit] Capital accumulation

The process of economic growth is inextricably linked to the growth of capitalist surplus, that is as long as the capitalist surplus increases, the national income also increases raising the growth of the economy. The increase in capitalist surplus is linked to the use of more and more labor which is assumed to be in surplus in case of this model. This process of capital accumulation does come to an end at some point. This point is where capital accumulation catches up with population so that there is no longer any surplus labor left. Lewis says that it the point where capital accumulation comes to a stop can come before also that is if real wages rise so high so as to reduce capitalists' profits to the level at which profits are all consumed and there is no net investment. This can take place in the following ways:1. If the capital accumulation is proceeding faster than population growth growth which causes a decline in the number of people in the agricultural or subsistence sector.2. The increase in the size of the capitalist or industrial sector in comparison to the subsistence sector may turn the terms of trade against the capitalist sector and therefore force the capitalists to pay the workers/laborers a higher percentage of their product in order to keep their real income constant.3. The subsistence sector may adopt new and improved methods and techniques of production, this will raise the level of subsistence wages in turn forcing an increase in the capitalist wages. Thus both the surplus of the capitalists and the rate of capital accumulation will then decline.4. Even though the productivity of capitalist sector remains unchanged, the workers in the capitalist sector may begin to imitate the capitalist style and way of life and therefore may need more to live on, this will raise the subsistence wage and also the capitalist wage and in turn the capitalist surplus and the rate of capital accumulation will decline. [4]

[edit] Criticism

The Lewis model has attracted attention of underdeveloped countries because it brings out some basic relationships in dualistic development. However it has been criticized on the following grounds:

1. Economic development takes place via the absorption of labor from the subsistence sector where opportunity costs of labor are very low. However, if there are positive opportunity costs, e.g. loss of crops in times of peak harvesting season, labor transfer will reduce agricultural output.

2. Absorption of surplus labor itself may end prematurely because competitors may raise wage rates and lower the share of profit. It has been shown that rural-urban migration in the Egyptian economy was accompanied by an increase in wage rates of 15 per cent and a fall in profits of 12 per cent. Wages in the industrial sector were forced up directly by unions and indirectly through demands for increased wages in the subsistence sector, as payment for increased productivity. In fact, given the urban-rural wage differential in most poor countries, large scale unemployment is now seen in both the urban and rural sectors.

3. The Lewis model underestimates the full impact on the poor economy of a rapidly growing population, i.e. its effects on agriculture surplus, the capitalist profit share, wage rates and overall employment opportunities. Similarly, Lewis assumed that the rate of growth in manufacturing would be identical to that in agriculture, but if industrial development involves more intensive use of capital than labor, then the flow of labor from agriculture to industry will simply create more unemployment.

4. Lewis seems to have ignored the balanced growth between agriculture and industry. Given the linkages between agricultural growth and industrial expansion in poor countries,if a section of the profit made by the capitalists is not devoted to agricultural development, the process of industrialization would be jeopardized.

5. Possible leakages from the economy seem to have been ignored by Lewis. He assumes boldly that a capitalist's marginal propensity to save is close to one, but a certain increase in consumption always accompanies an increase in profits, so the total increment of savings will be somewhat less than increments in profit. Whether or not capitalist surplus will be used constructively will depend on the consumption- saving patterns of the top 10 percent of the population. But capitalists alone are not the only productive agents of society. Small farmers producing cash crops in Egypt have shown themselves to be quite capable of saving the required capital. The world's largest cocoa industry in Ghana is entirely the creation of small enterprise capital formation.

6. The transfer of unskilled workers from agriculture to industry is regarded as almost smooth and costless, but this does not occur in practice because industry requires different types of labor. The problem can be solved by investment in education and skill formation, but the process is neither smooth nor inexpensive.

The model assumes rationality, perfect information and unlimited capital formation in industry. These do not exist in practical situations and so the full extent of the model is rarely realised. However, the model does provide a good general theory on labour transitioning in developing economies. [5]

[edit] Empirical tests and practical application of the Lewis model

1. Empirical evidence does not always provide much support for the Lewis model. Theodore Schultz in an empirical study of a village in India during the influenza epidemic of 1918–19 showed that agricultural output declined, although his study does not prove whether output would have declined had a comparable proportion of the agricultural population left for other occupations in response to economic incentive. Again disguised unemployment may be present in one sector of the economy but not in others. Further, empirically it is important to know not only whether the marginal productivity is equal to zero, but also the amount of surplus labor and the effect of its withdrawal on output.

2. The Lewis model was applied to the Egyptian economy by Mabro in 1967 and despite the proximity of Lewis's assumptions to the realities if the Egyptian situation during the period of study, the model failed firstly because Lewis seriously underestimated the rate of population growth and secondly because the choice of capital intensiveness in Egyptian industries did not show much labor using bias and as such, the level of unemployment did not show any tendency to register significant decline.

3. The validity of the Lewis model was again called into question when it was applied to Taiwan. It was observed that, despite the impressive rate of growth of the economy of Taiwan, unemployment did not fall appreciably and this is explained again in reference to the choice of capital intensity in industries in Taiwan. This raised the important issue whether surplus labor is a necessary condition for growth.

TEORI DUALISME EKONOMI INDONESIA MENURUT J.H. BOEKE Indonesia menurut J.H. Boeke mengalami dualisme ekonomi atau dua sistem ekonomi yang berbeda dan berdampingan kuat. Dua sistem tersebut bukan sistem ekonomi transisi dimana sifat dan ciri-ciri yang lama makin melemah dan yang baru makin menguat melainkan kedua-duanya sama kuat dan jauh berbeda. Perbedaan tersebut karena sebagai akibat penjajahan orang-orang Barat. Apabila tidak terjadi kedatangan orang-orang Barat mungkin sistem pra-kapitalisme Indonesia dan dunia Timur pada umunya pada suatu waktu akan berkembang menuju sisitem atau tahap kapitalisme. Akan tetapi sebelum perkembangan kelembagaan-kelembagaan ekonomi dan sosial menuju ke arah sama, penjajah dengan sisitem kapitalismenya (dan sosialismenya serta komunisme) telah masuk ke dunia Timur. Inilah yang menimbulkan sistem dualisme atau masyarakat dualisme. Telah diuraikan bahwa ekonomi dualistik atau lengkapnya sistem ekonomi dualistik adalah suatu masyarakat yang mengalami 2 macam sistem ekonomi yang saling berbeda dan berdampingan sama kuatnya dimana sistem ekonomi yang satu adalah sistem ekonomi yang masih bersifat pra-kapitalistik yang dianut oleh penduduk asli dan sistem ekonomi yang diimpor dari Barat yang telah bersifat kapitalistik atau mungkin telah dalam bentuk sosialisme atau komunisme. Kedua sistem ekonomi tersebut saling hidup berdampingan secara kuat dan bukan dalam bentuk transisional. Oleh karena kedua sistem ekonomi tersebut lebih menyangkut dua bentuk masyarakat yaitu masyarakat asli Indonesia dan masyarakat Barat dan atau yang telah dipengaruhi oleh Barat maka lebih tepat disebut masyarakat yang bersifat dualistik atau dual society. Masyarakat yang bersifat dualistik membutuhkan ilmu ekonomi yang berbeda untuk yang satu dengan yang lainnya. Ciri-ciri khusus masyarakat asli Indonesia dari segi ekonomi dikemukakan oleh J.H. Boeke sebagai berikut:1.Mobilitas faktor-faktor produksi adalah rendah. Mobilitas faktor produksi rendah disebabkan karena sangat terpengaruh oleh tradisi. Masyarakat yang bersifat tradisional tingkah lakunya telah terikat dalam

pola-pola tertentu. Penentuan upah, pembagian pekerjaan dan tugas, jam kerja, penggunaan peralatan modal, dan lain-lain bersifat tradisional.2.Pemisahan yang tajam antara kota dan pedesaan. Ketajaman tersebut sejajar dengan sifat masyarakat Timurnya sendiri. Karena peredaran uang dan ekonomi pasar belum menyusup ke masyarakat pedesaan, masyarakat pedesaan mempunyai sifat utama yaitu haus akan kredit. Pertentangan antara kota dan desa sekaligus merupakan pertentangan antara perdagangan dan industri dengan pertanian dengan kerajinan tangan. 3.Pertentangan antara rumah tangga atau perekonomian uang dengan perekonomian barang. Karena perbedaan ini maka pajak yang dikenakan terhadap masyarakat pedesaan yang harus dibayar dalam bentuk uang bersifat sangat memberatkan. 4.Yang satu bersifat mekanistik dan masyarakat pedesaan bersifat organik. Prinsipnya kehidupan masyarakat Barat sangat bersifat mekanistik dalam arti rasional zakelijk atau bersifat pamrih, obyektif dalam arti terutama melihat objek yang hendak dicapai dan kurang perhatian terhadap unsur-unsur subyektif, kenyatan-kenyataan yang bersifat metafisik, faktor berbagai macam perasaan dan lain-lain. Irama kehidupan masyarakat Timur sangat ditentukan oleh lingkungan fisik, lingkungan metafisik, maupun lingkungan sosialnya. Kepuasan bertindak dan kepuasan batiniah sangat ditentukan oleh lingkungan-lingkungan tersebut. Maka dari itu masyarakat Timur lebih mementingkan kebutuhan masyarakat, kebutuhan yang bersifat tradisional, membatasi kebutuhan dan nafsu pribadi dan lainnya. Individu sebagai suatu bagian dari organisme masyarakat, fungsi dan kedudukannya, kebtuhan dan kepuasannya sangat ditentukan oleh organismenya sebagai keseluruhan, baik organisme alam (fisik dan metafisik) maupun organisme sosial serta institusional. Banyak tuduhan tentang indolens, fatalisme, dan kemalasan bersumber pada tiadanya pengertian dan penghargaan itu. 5.Masyarakat Barat, perekonomiannya bersifat produsen dan masyarakat Timur berperekonomian konsumen. Azas perusahaan modern belum meresap dalam masyarakat Jawa (masyarakat Timur) dan konsumen dikuasai oleh alasan non ekonomi. Seluruh kehidupan dikuasai oleh agama , kebiasaan dan tradisi sesuai agama, tingkah laku terutama ditentukan oleh kebutuhan untuk merasa senang dan kepuasannya secara ekonomis mutlak adalah hal yang sekunder.

Dalam masyarakat yang mempunyai ciri-ciri seperti itu, ilmu ekonomi (yang bersal dari Barat) tidak akan berlaku atau paling tidak, berlakunya sangat terbatas. Teori ekonomi yang berasal dari Barat berlakunya harus dipenuhi persyaratan-persyaratan sebagai berikut :1.Kebutuhan subyek ekonominya tidak terbatas2.Masyarakat telah bersifat rumah tangga uang3.Individualisme.

DUALISME EKONOMI DI INDONESIA Perkembangan ekonomi yang terjadi saat Belanda menduduki Indonesia

ternyata memakai model-model yang berbeda. Baik pada masa VOC ataupun

kolonial. Sistem yang diterapkan pada dasarnya berusaha memakai model konsep

ekonomi barat. Apabila sepenuhnya sistem dari barat diterapkan pada

perekonomian saat itu ternyata tidak relevan. Masyarakat pribumi pada umunya

masih memakai konsep ekonomi tradisional. Sistem ekonomi barat dapat merusak

struktur sosial yang sudah ada.

            Kapitalisme dalam ekonomi merupakan sebuah model yang lebih maju

ketimbang sistem ekonomi tradisional. Kapitalisme adalah sistem ekonomi yang

dinamis, sedang ekonomi tradisional cenderung statis. Kapitalisme memakai

modal-modal yang dimiliki oleh swasta. Sedangkan ekonomi tradisional masih

mementingkan asas kekeluargaan atau kebersamaan. Masing-masing, baik

ekonomi kapitalisme dan tradisional tidak dapat berkembang bersama. Mereka

berdiri sendiri-sendiri saat proses perekonomian berjalan. Model perekonomian

yang seperti itu dikenal sebagai ekonomi dualistis. Dan dalam sistem tradisional,

relasi yang digunakan dengan prinsip sosial dan kultural.

            Geertz, dalam bukunya Involusi Pertanian membagi tahap-tahap proses

perekonomian yang dipakai Belanda saat menguasai Indonesia dalam tiga periode.

Yaitu, (a). Masa VOC (abad 17-18), (b). Sistem Tanam Paksa (1830-1870), (c).

Sistem Perkebunan Swasta (1870-1941). Dari tiga periode tadi sistem Tanam

Paksa adalah masa dimana pola ekonomi dualistis mulai maju dan munculnya

involusi. Lalu ekonomi dualistis dan involusi maju dengan pesat terjadi pada masa

Perkebunan Swasta. [1]

            Pada masa itulah menurut Geertz, sektor ekspor dan impor dalam kondisi

yang tidak seimbang. Sistem ekonomi tradisional yang mengandalkan pertanian

kolonial dipaksa untuk mengikuti sektor ekspor yang sedang berkembang didunia

dengan pola ekologi. Itu merupakan ciri tetap perekoniman kita saat dikuasai

Belanda antara 1619-1942. [2] Pada kurun waktu 1619-1942, Belanda

mengembangkan produk pertanian agar bisa dijual ke pasar dunia tanpa

mengubah struktur ekonomi tradisional milik pribumi. Itu merupakan sistem yang

diterapkan agar tanaman Indonesia yang cocok dengan pasaran dunia dapat

menghasilkan keuntungan bagi pemerintahan. Sedang masyarakat pribumi dengan

ekonomi tradisionalnya berada dalam posisi stagnan. Itulah dualisme ekonomi.[3]

            Kemungkinan, pada prinsipnya memang sengaja diterapkan model-model

tersebut agar keuntungan yang diperoleh dapat dimiliki oleh orang-orang yang

berada dibalik ekonomi kapitalis. Mereka sengaja menciptakan kondisi dualisme

ekonomi. Masalahnya, memang kapitalisme saat itu tidak relevan didalam strukur

sosial masyarakat pribumi.

            Indonesia dengan daerah alamnya yang tropis, menurut Boeke dengan

dualisme ekonominya serta Furnivall dengan plural ekonomi menyatakan bahwa

pembauran antara masyarakat Eropa dengan pribumi tidak bisa terjadi. Bagaikan

air dan minyak.[4] Perubahan-perubahan drastis dilakukan oleh pemerintah

kolonial demi meningkatkan hasil pertanian, yang pada saat itu berbeda dengan

tanaman-tanaman masa Tanam Paksa. Bisa dikatakan bukan pertanian, melainkan

perkebunan. Perubahan tadi banyak terjadi di Jawa. Contohnya, Jawa Barat

menghasilkan kina, teh , karet. Lalu Jawa Tengah dengan kopi, tembakau dan tebu.

Sedang Jawa Timur memproduksi tebu dan kopi. Tanaman-tanaman yang

dihasilkan tiga daerah tadi merupakan tanaman ekspor baru. Mereka menggeser

posisi tanaman sawah, seperti padi atau palawija. Model tanaman sektor ekspor

tadi membuat tanaman sektor domestik menjadi anjlok. Model perkebunan baru

atau tanaman sektor ekspor adalah investasi bagi asing.[5] Seperti yang sudah

disampaikan diatas, bahwa ekonomi kapital mengandalkan modal yang diperoleh

dari swasta. Dan yang dimaksud dengan swasta kebanyakan adalah penduduk

asing.

            Perubahan dari pertanian menjadi perkebunan mungkin membuat kaget

masyrakat Jawa. Adapun pernyataan Geertz dengan kondisi baru tadi

menghasilkan beberapa gejala tersendiri. Pertama, sifat “pasca tradisional” dari

struktur sosial di desa-desa. Kedua, sistem kepemilikan tanah menjadi semakin

kuat. Ketiga, pengembangan palawija. Keempat, shared poverty menjadi semakin

parah dalam pembagian kesempatan kerja serta pendapatan. Dan kondisi tadi

bukan menghasilkan golongan kaya atau miskin. Namun golongan cukupan dan

golongan kekurangan.[6]

            Struktur ekonomi milik pribumi memang tidak diubah. Namun sektor

ekspor dan sektor domestik menjadi berkembang sendiri. Sektor ekspor diwakili

oleh kapitalisme administratif. Mereka mengatur harga penjualan dan upah bagi

tanam ekspor baru tadi serta mengontrol pengeluaran dan proses produksi.

Sedangkan sektor domestik diwakili pertanian keluarga. Industri rumah kecil-

kecilan dan perdagangan. Kondisi itu menyebabkan ketimpangan. Saat ekspor

tanaman baru sedang berkembang dan harga barang dagang dunia naik,

mengakibatkan sektor domestik menurun. Masyarakat pribumi yang menjadi

petani beserta tanahnya harus mengolah tebu, nila, kopi dan tembakau. Bukan

padi atau palawija. Sebaliknya, disaat sektor domestik yang meningkat, petani

berusaha mengintensifkan tanaman subsistensi seperti padi, palawija dll yang

notabene makanan pokok mereka.[7]

            Sebenarnya analisa Geertz dalam bukunya Involusi Pertanian dibantah oleh

Collier dalam bukunya Agricultural Evolution in Java: The Decline of Shared

Poverty and Involution. Menurut Collier, apa yang diteliti oleh Geertz mengabaikan

kelas yang ada antara golongan pemilik tanah dan golongan tidak bertanah. Geertz

tidak menganalisis kondisi sesungguhnya. Lalu beberapa perkembangan yang

mutakhir menunjukkan pertentangan antara analisa Geertz mengenai involusi

pertanian dengan bertambahnya penduduk dan pemakaian tenaga yang lebih

banyak atas tanah-tanah.[8]

            Pada saat Tanam Paksa dihapuskan di tahun 1870. Kita tahu jika

perkebunan yang menjadi komoditas ekspor dikembangkan, terutama tebu yang

menghasilkan gula. Pengelola tanah perkebunan tadi diserahkan kepada

Binnenlandsch Bestuur dan pangreh praja. Tapi setelah itu perkebunan tadi

diserahkan kepada swasta atau pihak non pemerintah, tidak lagi dikelola

pemerintah kolonial. Tapi gula tadi menjadi permasalahan bagi penduduk Jawa.

Karena lahan persawahan makin kecil, tergusur oleh lahan tebu. Sistem tradisional

yang cenderung feodal kalah dengan sistem yang baru.

            Sistem pertanian/persawahan pada dasarnya memanfaatkan pajak

tanah(hak upeti raja) dan tenaga kerja. Lahan sawah tadi harus diserahkan untuk

ditanami perkebunan gula. Otomatis tenaga kerja juga harus diserahkan.

Perkebunan tebu memang cocok pada lahan sawah dan membutuhkan irigasi.[9]

Pemodal swasta dapat berkembang saat itu karena “kerjasama” dengan

pemerintah kolonial dalam hal tanah atau tenaga kerja. Taktik yang dipakai

sengaja untuk mematikan kondisi petani pribumi supaya dalam posisi statis dan

membuat tanah persawahannya makin sempit.

            Kehidupan petani pribumi kala itu sangat menjunjung tinggi kebersamaan.

Namun karena kondisi baru yang ada memaksa mereka untuk merubah hidup.

Dikenalnya ekonomi uang dan kepemilikan tanah makin sempit. Perubahan sosial

perlahan-perlahan terjadi. Faktor yang mempengaruhinya adalah kondisi

demografi serta kebijakan pemerintah.[10] Petani pribumi saat itu memang terikat

kontrak dengan pengusaha perkebunan swasta. Biarpun petani mempunyai hak

yang kuat atas tanah mereka. Kontrak adalah ciri-ciri dari sistem ekonomi kapital.

Hal itu dilakukan oleh pemerintah kolonial demi kepentingan negara induk agar

mendapatkan barang dagangan orientasi pasar dunia, seperti gula, karet,

tembakau dll.[11]

            Jadi semenjak adanya sistem perkebuna yang dikuasai oleh swasta, kondisi

sosial ekonomi masyarakat pedesaan lama-lama berubah. Tapi bukan berarti

merteka menjadi kapitalistik. Namun mereka mulai mengerti pasar serta lalu lintas

keuangan, intinya mendapatkan alat-alat penukaran dualistis.[12] Kondisi ekonomi

dualistis dengan dua sistem ekonomi yang berbeda memang tidak bisa menyatu.

Sistem ekonomi tradisional yang cenderung komunal, lingkup spasialnya pada

rumah tangga serta masih menggunakan kerajinan tangan, hubungannya

patriarkal (buruh dan majikan). Mereka harus berdampingan dengan sistem

ekonomi kapital yang individualisme, ruang lingkupnya perusahaan dan memakai

teknologi mesin, hubungannya kerja dengan sistem kontrak. Kondisi dua sistem

adalah pedesaan milik tradisonal, sedang perkotaan adalah kapitalisme.[13]

Ekonomi dualistik yang diterapkan oleh pemerintah kolonial pada dasarnya

untuk menekan agar masyarakat pribumi terus bertahan dengan ekonomi

tradisionalnya. Pemerintahan Kolonial bekerjasama dengan swasta asing. Dan

disini para swasta punya modal yang cukup untuk menyogok pemerintah agar

tanah milik para petani dapat dipakai demi lahan perkebunan. Pengusaha swasta

asing kebanyakan para orang Cina, Timur Asing dan bangsa Eropa. Namun

ternyata bukan mereka saja, para raja Jawa juga ikut menjadi pemodal. Investasi

yang mereka tanamkan pada perkebunan membawa dampak yang besar bagi

pemerintah kolonial. Kondisi seperti itu mengakibatkan lahan pertanian menjadi

semakin berkurang. Namun adaptasi dari pribumi lokal dengan sistem tadi secara

perlahan-lahan. Sistem ekonomi tradisional susah untuk menyatu dengan sistem

ekonomi kapitalis. Sistem kapitalis membawa dampak yang besar karena

menghasilkan keuntungan yang menggiurkan bagi pihak-pihak lokal ataupun

asing.

Daftar Pustaka :

Boeke, J.H. dan D.H. Burger, Ekonomi Dualistis: Dialog Antara Boeke dan Burger. Jakarta: Bhratara, 1973.

Geertz, Clifford., Involusi Pertanian: Proses Perubahan Ekologi di Indonesia. Jakarta: Bhratara Karya Aksara, 1983.

Lombard, Denys., Nusa Jawa I: Batas-Batas Pembaratan. Jakarta: Gramedia, 2008.

Nagazumi,Akira., Indonesia dalam Kajian Sarjana Jepang: Perubahan Sosial-ekonomi Abad XIX & XX dan Berbagai Aspek Nasionalisme Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 1986.

Ong Hok Ham, Dari Soal Priyayi Sampai Nyi Blorong. Jakarta: Kompas, 2002.

Soegijanto Padmo, Bunga Rampai Sejarah Sosial-Ekonomi Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Aditya Media, 2004.

           

 Catatan Kaki

[1] Akira Nagazumi, Indonesia dalam Kajian Sarjana Jepang: Perubahan Sosial-ekonomi Abad XIX & XX dan Berbagai Aspek Nasionalisme Indonesia. (Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 1986), hlm. 15-16.

[2] Ibid., hlm. 15.

[3] Clifford Geertz, Involusi Pertanian: Proses Perubahan Ekologi di Indonesia. (Jakarta: Bhratara Karya Aksara, 1983), hlm. 49-50.

[4] Denys Lombard, Nusa Jawa I: Batas-Batas Pembaratan. (Jakarta: Gramedia, 2008), hlm. 220.

[5] Ibid., hlm. 53.

[6] Akira Nagazumi, Indonesia dalam Kajian Sarjana Jepang: Perubahan Sosial-ekonomi Abad XIX & XX dan Berbagai Aspek Nasionalisme Indonesia. (Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 1986), hlm. 19.

[7] Clifford Geertz, Involusi Pertanian: Proses Perubahan Ekologi di Indonesia. (Jakarta: Bhratara Karya Aksara, 1983), hlm. 50.

[8] op.cit., hlm. 22.

[9] Ong Hok Ham, Dari Soal Priyayi Sampai Nyi Blorong. (Jakarta: Kompas, 2002), hlm. 66.

[10] Soegijanto Padmo, Bunga Rampai Sejarah Sosial-Ekonomi Indonesia. (Yogyakarta: Aditya Media, 2004), hlm. 52.

[11] Ibid., hlm. 52-53.

[12] J.H. Boeke dan D.H. Burger, Ekonomi Dualistis: Dialog Antara Boeke dan Burger. (Jakarta: Bhratara, 1973), hlm. 79.

[13] Ibid., hlm. 82-83.