Rural Transformation

KOMPAS/DAHLIA IRAWATI

Residents of Pandanlandung Village, Wagir District, Malang Regency, East Java, built drainage using village funds, as seen on Monday (07/09/2020).

President Joko Widodo has again initiated a paradigm reversal for economic development in rural areas as a buffer zone for the urban economy. Is this possible?

The classical view that rural resources are only suited to the development of primary commodities, like agricultural and horticultural food crops and products, livestock or fish, needs updating. The idea to transform poor agricultural villages into a thriving industrial area is not just political rhetoric. One example is Huaxi village in Yansu province, China. Like many other villages in China, Huaxi was previously a poor village with excess manpower but a shortage of agricultural land.

However, it made history with its success story of rural transformation. With capital intervention, especially in the form of electricity, logistical services, technology and leadership, Huaxi transformed into a competitive textile and steel manufacturing village to become affluent and prosperous.

The key to its success was the leadership of village chief Wu Ren Bau. Wu made sure that the transformation ran efficiently and competitively, and involved local human resources. Businesses in the village were empowered. Today, Huaxi is often referred to as “the richest village in China”.

Huaxi’s cooperatives offer free housing and car loans to its residents. Cooking oil, health insurance and primary and secondary school are provided gratis. Is this a hoax? Last year, before the emergence of the novel coronavirus, this writer had a chance of visiting the village, and saw that the report is no hoax. Many advanced villages are developing China.

The Saemaul Undong (New Village Movement) emphasized hard work and productivity under the guidance of local leaders, who were to act as role models and develop a culture of mutual assistance through building infrastructure.

Former South Korean president Park Chung-hee was also a champion of rural development in that country. In 1970, then-President Park initiated a rural development movement, as villages in South Korea were poor and unproductive at that time. The Saemaul Undong (New Village Movement) emphasized hard work and productivity under the guidance of local leaders, who were to act as role models and develop a culture of mutual assistance through building infrastructure.

With the government providing technical guidance, supervision and (small) capital assistance, the movement succeeded in transforming village life. The former sight of houses with earthen walls and thatched roofs, without electricity or clean water, was transformed into houses with brick walls and tiled roofs, with electricity and potable water. President Park, who gave constant motivation to the social movement, instilled a culture of hard work and mutual assistance.

In essence, rural human resources were given an education, invited to collaborative drives toward mutual assistance and encouraged to seek solutions to problems together. South Korea then shared the Saemaul Undong concept to Asian and African countries through free training programs. The program even offered subsidies for travel and accommodation costs.

KOMPAS/FERGANATA INDRA RIATMOKO

Clean water management in Tlogolele Village, Selo, Boyolali, Central Java uses village funds, as seen on Friday (10/7/2020).

Looking at these two success stories in China and South Korea, Indonesia should also be able to launch a similar social movement.

Village development success formulas

The success stories above seem to share three keywords in accomplishing rural development, namely LPC: “leader”, “people” (“followers”), and “culture”. The model that Wu Ren Bau used in Huaxi village focused on rural human resources in just two sectors, textile and steel manufacturing, the traditional industries in the village. When these industries in his village made progress, additional funding was certainly needed to push development to a higher level. They eyed the capital market with its abundance of funds and did not seek government aid. The capital market of course demanded efficient and quality industrial standards, which were fulfilled. So, Huaxi became an issuer on the capital market and raised a lot of money at a low cost. Now it sells its products to more than 40 countries.

Wu was a moderate yet resolute figure. He always reminded the village residents of the virtuous cultural values of hard work, rising early, thrift, discipline, and cohesion, and highly valued honesty. The local people adhere to these values and continue to preserve them through speeches and messages printed on the pillars of public buildings, as well as through a system of reward and punishment.

When people move out of Huaxi village, they lose their right to free housing and car loans, insurance facilities and other social assistance.

Education is also prioritized. Discipline is strictly inculcated among the people. Those who are proven to have damaged public facilities, such as breaking a flowerpot, are fined the equivalent of US$1,500. When people move out of Huaxi village, they lose their right to free housing and car loans, insurance facilities and other social assistance. Rural brain drain can thus be prevented.

This was also the case with the rural development movement in South Korea, where 335 sacks of cement were first distributed to each village to attract the interest of rural residents. A village that used the cement productively received an additional 500 sacks of cement and 1 ton of steel rods. The villages became even more productive. The rural per capita income of $79 in the 1960s grew more than tenfold in the 1970s. The growth was exponential.

The key lesson that can be drawn from the LPC (leader, people, culture) concept that was used in both countries is the presence of grassroots leaders that could engender a sense of crisis in bringing about change for improving lives. The next stage was to establish a “guiding coalition” (as in the change management concept developed by John Kotter) to launch a massive social movement.

Together, the community disseminates and develops the leader’s visions, which are the values of diligence, mutual help and cooperation.

These values become a consensus. Not to be overlooked is the aspect of regular recognition and awards for any successes, including evaluations to verify and standardize the formula for success, so it can be replicated.

Rural development in Indonesia

Indonesia also has several successful models of rural development, such as the Tourist Village, the Paddy Village and the Batik Village, as well as many others. Only recently, an “inventor” from Kepel village in Madiun went viral on social media.

Kepel is a successful example of transformation from a formerly barren village, thanks to the development model initiated by a youth named Paidi, a former scavenger and tofu vendor. Owing to his perseverance and his pastime of online learning, he eventually came up with the idea of cultivating the porang (Amorphophallus muelleri Blume), a tuber of the Araceae family that contains carbohydrates and calcium oxalate, and can be ground into flour to make udon noodles. It is also used a raw material for producing a very good, environmentally friendly adhesive.

Dry porang is sold for Rp 100,000 per kilogram, and cultivating the plant on 1 hectare of land one can generate at least Rp 800,000 per harvest, with each year producing three harvests. The plant offers an attractive sales value compared to other plants. This innovative attempt in such a barren village was able to boost the economy of Kepel village and other settlements in its vicinity. On the social spirit of its initiator, Paidi, who was ready to guide his “followers” through a culture of “mau berbagi” (sharing), the people’s economy of Kepel village and its surrounding areas developed very rapidly in the end.

There are many other interesting examples, such as farming maggots of the black soldier fly. Maggot farming has become very popular of late in several villages in West Java that produce a feed mix for fish and livestock. This locally produced feed is a substitute for fishmeal imported from Chile and Peru.

These two examples serve to validate the idea that Indonesian villages have high potential in being developed into buffer zones of the urban economy, as long as the creativity and innovation of village residents are developed and promoted.

New village culture

The Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration Ministry has expanded the property it owns over more than two presidential terms. The ministry aims to develop 74,953 villages into self-sufficient rural economies. It has provided adequate capital incentives each year, with the assistance of the young academic guides it has recruited for each village. The government has already disbursed a total of Rp 21 trillion in funding.

Companion buffer institutions like BUMDes (village-owned enterprises) have even been set up in all villages, but outstanding achievements have not been forthcoming. Moreover, the Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration Ministry must still realize the new hope President Joko Widodo has given rise to amid the Covid-19 crisis, On looking at the success of LPC-based rural development programs that have helped drive the urban economies in China and South Korea, no correlation has been found between village administrations’ function as local ministerial institutions and the achievements they have made.

Academic research has shown that the setting of the ecosystem platform (selecting actors and factors) is more important in making self-sufficient village administrations than can serve as an urban buffer zone. In this case, village leaders must be capable of fulfilling two important needs, which are to be innovative and to pursue collaborative governance, so in the end, they can influence their followers under an appropriate management culture that involves mutual agreement and supervision.

After the foundational culture has been established, potential innovations are selected on the basis of the competencies of each village, while also taking into account the local wisdom. The government should introduce and guide the new concept of one village, one innovation (OVOI) to renew the spirit, to replace the old spirit of the one village, one product (OVOP) concept.

ARSIP PRIBADI

Martani Huseini

Each village should be directed, guided and facilitated through a program manual for a local task force to implement the idea of developing villages as economic, urban buffer zones.

Martani Huseini, Chairman, Center for Innovative Governance (CIGO), Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Indonesia