Patron-Client in Changing Livelihood from Rubber Plant to Palm

Authors

  • Garuda Parampara Yuda Social Safeguard Specialist

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55324/ijoms.v2i12.652

Keywords:

patron-client, Tauke, subordiantes, rubber, palm, livelihood

Abstract

Rubber gardening for people in several regions of West Kalimantan is the main livelihood. One of them is in Sei Kembayau Village. For generations, rubber gardening has been the livelihood of the villagers. Rubber plants have actually been passed down from generation to generation. The patron-client concept that currently exists is the basic foundation in survival and has been attached to rubber plantations in the community. This paper aims to see the patron-client pattern from the change in livelihood of rubber plants to oil palm plants. This study used ethnographic research methods. Take a holistic approach and describe it in depth or detail to obtain a genuine person's point of view. Tauke patron-clients and subordinates are still well established as an economic concept of the Sei Kembayau Village community, even though there is already a KUD present in the community as support for the palm oil economy. So that subordinates will still get social security from every Tauke as their patron.

References

Belcher, B., Rujehan, Imang, N., & Achdiawan, R. (2004). Rattan, rubber, or oil palm: Cultural and financial considerations for farmers in Kalimantan. Economic Botany, 58(SUPPL.). https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)58[77:rroopc]2.0.co;2

Cohen, R. (1966). The Dynamics of Feudalism in Bornu (MS Group 142).

Eisenstadt, S. N., & Roniger, L. (1980). Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500009154

Jonge, H. D. (1989). Madura Dalam Empat Zaman: Pedagang, Perkembangan Ekonomi, dan Islam. Gramedia.

Koentjaraningrat. (2009). Pengantar ilmu antropologi (Revised). Rineka Cipta.

Kowalski, B., & Rek??, M. (2023). Pandemic diplomacy and patron–client relations in Sino-Serbian cooperation. China Information. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X231155148

Lande, C. H. (1977). Introduction: The Dyadic Basis of Clientelism. In S. W. Schmidt (Ed.), Friends, Followers and Factions. University of California Press.

Marjali, A. (2005). Antropologi dan Pembangunan Indonesia. Kencana.

Mulyasari, R. (2013). “Tokeh Senang Anak Buah Senang” Perubahan Pola Relasi Patron-Klien [Doctoral Dissertation]. Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Putra, H. S. A. (2007). Patron dan Klien di Sulawesi Selatan. Kepel Press.

Sayar?, S. (2014). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Political Clientelism and Patronage in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2014.985809

Scott, J. C. (1972). Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/1959280

Singapore Exchange. (2023). SICOM Rubber. SGX.

Spradley, J. P. (2016). The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press.

Wolf, E. R. (2013). Kinship, friendship, and patron-client relations in complex societies. In Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315017631

Downloads

Published

2023-09-26