How ‘integrated’ is integrated rural development? The case of the Pompengan Integrated Area Development Project (PIADP), Luwu district, South Sulawesi, Indonesia
| Date | 02 November 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230140404 |
| Published date | 02 November 2006 |
| Author | Dik Roth |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 14,377-393 (1994)
How
‘integrated’ is integrated rural development? The case
of
the Pompengan Integrated Area Development Project
(PIADP), Luwu district, South Sulawesi, Indonesia
DIK ROTH
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
SUMMARY
Integrated rural development is often presented as an effective strategy against rural poverty
in Indonesia. In this article the author discusses the case of the Pompengan Integrated Area
Development Project (PIADP) in Luwu, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, where a programme for
land reform was part of the ‘integrated’ approach. In explaining the outcome of PIADP,
the author analyses two properties of intervention itself in relation to the context in which
it took place: first, land reform as a donor development priority which was planned and
implemented as a purely technical and administrative operation; and, second, the production-
oriented character of planning, which further isolated land reform from its local context.
It is concluded that PIADP was characterized by fragmentation, competition and conflict
rather than ‘integratedness’. Therefore, rather than taking such policy language for granted
and accepting the policy instruments it represents as ‘models for development’, we should
critically analyse the sphere of policy implementation. In the case of rural development in
Indonesia, the depoliticized character of land policy and its reduction to a technical-adminis-
trative routine is a major issue to be addressed before land reform and integrated rural develop-
ment can make a significant contribution to the eradication of rural poverty in Indonesia.
INTRODUCTION
There is general agreement that Indonesia’s macroeconomic performance and deve-
lopment policy
during
the
last
two
decades have
in
many
respects been quite success-
ful.
Despite sudden falls in the oil price in the 1980s the government of Indonesia
has continued its programmes for rural development. The gradual decline in the
number
of
people living in absolute poverty is one
of
the achievements
of
Indonesia’s
macroeconomic
and
development
policies (see Dirkse
et
al.,
1993; Thorbecke and
van
der
Pluijm, 1993; Vatikiotis, 1993).
Despite these successes, much criticism is still launched at the negative social conse-
quences of growth-oriented economic policy.
A
large
part
of
the population still
lives under or marginally above the absolute poverty level, and regional, occupational
and other variations in the incidence of poverty are still a matter of great concern
to
many observers (see Dirkse
et
aE.,
1993). Tjondronegoro (1993, p. 164) even stresses
that ‘although the well-being of the whole population has been
a
priority since 1965,
Dik Roth (Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) is
a
cultural anthropologist engaged in research
and practical
work
on developmental issues. From 1989 to 1992 he worked in PIADP for the Institute
of Social Studies Advisory Service (ISSAS) as a consultant for land reform and settlement. His address
is
Zomerdijkstraat 3”, 1079
WX
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
CCC
027 1-2075/94/040377-17
0
1994
by
John Wiley
8c
Sons,
Ltd.
378
D.
Roth
little can be found in the context of macro-economic development to indicate specific
commitments to poverty alleviation’.
One
of
the current instruments for poverty eradication in rural Indonesia is the
‘integrated area development’ strategy. By its focus on preselected rural areas identi-
fied as pockets
of
poverty, this approach is supposed to make possible a target
group orientation to poverty eradication. Cheetham and Peeters (1993,
p.
35)
remark
that ‘the government will
.
.
.
stimulate development in poorer areas through a series
of integrated area development projects’. In order to speed up the process of poverty
eradication, disadvantaged groups should be reached ‘by improving lower-income
groups’ access to Indonesia’s land resources’ (Cheetham and Peeters,
1993,
p.
19).
But are these assumptions about the merits of integrated area development as
an instrument for poverty eradication, largely originating from changing views on
‘development’ among donors, borne out by the practice of implementation of such
projects? This article deals with interesting experiences gained with one such ‘inte-
grated’ project, the Pompengan Integrated Area Development Project (PIADP) in
Luwu district, South Sulawesi, Indonesia (see Figures
1
and
2).
PIADP was a project
of Dutch bilateral development assistance to the Republic
of
Indonesia. Dutch invol-
vement in PIADP was terminated in
1992
as a result of the decision of the government
of Indonesia not to accept Dutch aid any longer. After the transfer, part of the
programme was continued with Indonesian funds until 1993.
Fig.
1.
PIADP was one of the few projects in Indonesia in which the integrated area
development approach was combined with intervention in land tenure through redis-
tribution
of
land. Thus, it is an important and revealing example of the practice
of
implementation of two important policy strategies for poverty alleviation in rural
areas mentioned by Cheetham and Peeters.
In the second part
of
this article
I
will give a description
of
the regional setting,
To continue reading
Request your trial