Singapore: National University of Singapore Press [distributed by the University of Chicago Press], 2023. US$38.00, paper. ISBN 9789813251830.
It is mentioned in The Paradox of Agrarian Change: Food Security and the Politics of Social Protection in Indonesia by John McCarthy, Andrew McWilliam, and Gerben Nooteboom that palm oil is one of the most researched crops in the world. One question remains largely unanswered among the many questions within the palm oil research agenda: If palm oil is such a great driver of rural development, why do people not seem much better off with it? As a scholar of the politics of palm oil, I have observed this in Malaysia, where I am from, and Indonesia, where I do most of my research.
The authors of this book offer a timely and systematic answer to that question in the context of Indonesia, where palm oil serves as a key case alongside analyses of other crops and fisheries across the archipelago. The framework used in this book is sophisticated, but I would attempt to simplify it as follows: agrarian development in Indonesia has indeed “visibly” reduced statistical poverty among rural populations. However, alternative metrics reveal how different crops shape developmental pathways in different ways that can render certain types of poverty invisible. As a result, the Indonesian government’s social protection programs tend to mistarget recipients and sometimes even render recipients worse off financially.
An important metric used in this book is stunting among children. Despite some upward social and financial mobility, the authors find that stunting, a key indicator of malnutrition and poverty, continues to be prevalent among agrarian populations. Moving away from subsistence farming to commodity crops like palm oil and rice has changed consumption and purchasing patterns—people may not have to grow or rear their own food anymore. However, they end up purchasing processed, calorie-rich food that lacks nutrients. In other scenarios, they may have more disposable income, but lifestyle changes and social expectations—to own mobile phones and motorcycles and buy junk food for their children to bring to school—leave less money for healthy food.
Social protection programs in Indonesia have taken the shape of conditional cash transfers. However, in the vastness of Indonesia, poverty in one place often does not look the same in another. Therefore, many families who are poor by local standards do not receive assistance, and vice versa. The operationalization of these cash transfers, through government-issued cash cards that can mainly be used at government-sanctioned shops and banks, is challenging in areas of poor transport connectivity and low urbanization. Recipients sometimes have to lose a day’s wages to travel to cities or pay “runners” to do so.
Some of the other “unseen” elements of poverty revealed in this book include seasonality and gender. Seasonality is a concept I am exploring in my work on transboundary haze as a type of human-made season, or “season of the Anthropocene.” Through its various case studies, the book reveals how the seasonal nature of agriculture does not match well with the consistent scheduling of cash transfers given by the government. During agricultural low seasons, the assistance provided is inadequate, forcing people to take on debt. Most of the assistance received during the high season is then used to repay debt with interest. These seasonal patterns are, of course, location and crop specific and cannot be generalized.
In terms of gender, agro-industrialization has increasingly pushed males into formal or informal work arrangements outside the home, increasing the burden on women to manage finances and food security for their families. It also increases the likelihood for women-led households to fall into the poverty trap, as they are locked out of such employment. At the same time, Indonesian social protection programs channel cash transfers through women, based on the belief that women know how to handle finances “better” than men. In some instances, this has led to gender-based violence and other complications stemming from cultural factors.
Overall, I have two major takeaways from this book. First, the danger of applying one-size-fits-all policies to address poverty and development. This book highlights how Indonesia fully pursued the commodification of key crops in line with global market trends and how Indonesia was compelled to adopt the World Bank’s cash transfers system throughout the country. Second, how politics can influence policymaking: development data is used to justify a pro-agrarian policy direction, and handouts are used for politicians to win votes.
This book is a critical reminder to academics and policymakers to tread cautiously in pursuing developmental goals. It is an essential addition to the literature highlighting the paradoxes or “perverse outcomes” of development, echoed in global critiques of neoliberal agrarian policies prioritizing market integration over local food security, as seen in parallels across Latin America and Africa. Ultimately, this book serves as a call to action for researchers and policymakers to critically reassess agrarian strategies and their broader social implications to foster truly equitable development in Indonesia and beyond.
Helena Varkkey
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur