Assessing Social Resilience

among Regencies and Communities

in Indonesia

DRAFT
Discussion Paper
presented by
DR. Friedhelm Betke
Advisor to the Director General,
Statistics Indonesia (BPS)

Jakarta, January 2002

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 2

Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.

Introduction ................................................................................................. 3
Why social resilience? ............................................................................. 3
What is social resilience?......................................................................... 4
How to assess social resilience capacity among local communities?...... 7
STEP I: Nationwide mapping exercise ..................................................................... 8
a) Social resilience mapping: ranking areas according to dependant variables at
the family, the individual, and the community level............................................ 8
b) Large-scale systems integration mapping: ranking areas according to variables
independent of local influence ............................................................................. 8
c) Map matching: identifying correlating patterns of social resilience and largescale integration.................................................................................................. 8
STEP II: Field studies in four selected districts ......................................................... 9
a) Final selection of example areas and preparations for village and district level
assessment of relevant dimensions of local-specific social organisation............. 9
b) Pilot analyses: Identifying relevant dimensions of local-specific social
organisation ........................................................................................................ 10
c) Developing standard procedures for integrated analysis of regional social
resilience constraints and potentials................................................................... 10
STEP III: Going to scale: centrally facilitated empowerment of regional BPS offices
to lead area-specific routine assessment of social resilience opportunities
and challenges ........................................................................................... 10
ANNEX I: Outcome Assessment...................................................................................... 11
a) Assessing changing individual vulnerability across the human life span .......... 11
References ......................................................................................................................... 15

The authors address:

Dr. Friedhelm Betke
c/o Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial
Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS)
Jl. Dr. Sutomo 6-8
Jakarta 10710, Indonesia
Phone:
+62 (21) 384-1195 ext. 1644
Email:
fbetke@mailhost.bps.go.id; fbetke@indosat.net.id
Web site: http://www.bps.go.id; http://fbetke.com

F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 3

I.

Introduction

This paper is written as an attempt to lay the foundation to a rational, systematic and
thorough discussion of the possible courses of joint action in defining and developing
objectives and tasks of my current working environment, i.e. the newly established
Directorate of Social Resilience Statistics (Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Social,
DitHansos) at the National Agency for Statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS)
Statistics Indonesia). Therefore, this paper will be adjusted to the results of the two-way
communication process with my counterparts, as well as in response to comments from
national and international scholars which whom this paper is shared. During this process,
however, it should be noted that the opinions stated in this paper will remain my personal
and individual opinions as long as the paper is in draft condition. Before official adoption
of the final version BPS is not to be held responsible for any statement contained in this
paper.
I have decided to use the English language for this paper in order to facilitate easy
communication with international scholars within and outside Indonesia and to support
the ongoing documentation of my work sponsored by the Integrated Experts
Programme of the German Federal Government through the International Centre for
Migration and Development (CIM) (see http://www.cimonline.de).
The immediate purpose of this paper is to facilitate the joint creation of an integrated
short-term and medium-term work plan spelling out the tasks of different sections of my
current host institution in relation to tasks assigned to myself. In addition, the essence of
this paper should aid the composition of adequate advocacy papers directed at different
audiences (such as donor agencies, the central and regional government, etc.) whose
support to the directorates future activities would be sought. However, this paper is
strictly conceptual, technical and procedural in nature and no attempts are made yet to
advocate for the emerging concept of social resilience.

II. Why social resilience?

Social resilience or ketahanan sosial has recently been introduced into the
Indonesian governments discussion of concepts related to human and social
development. Several government agencies (e.g. Lingkungan Hidup, Tenaga Kerja, BPS)
are currently striving to achieve a proper definition of a phenomenon that is more known
from its manifestation, i.e. the miraculously mild impact of the Asian crisis on
Indonesias families and communities. Apparently community institutions and family
networks have been able to absorb much of the shock waves send from the urban centres
of the financial, economic and currency disaster through the entire archipelago.
The true workings of the social mechanisms showing this remarkable strength, or
resilience for that matter, are not properly understood for lack of appropriate
information. This became obvious, when the government in collaboration with donors
tried to identify policy options for community based interventions referred to as social
safety nets. Little knowledge was readily available in regard to the rich social fabric and
traditions of mutual help, commonly referred to as gotong royong, that could have been
used as an entry point for channelling massive subsidies to the most vulnerable groups,
families and individuals directly.
F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 4

Mainly because of this information paucity and respective erroneous conceptual

assumptions underlying some of the intervention strategies, many of the social safety net
funds were not optimally allocated. A major lesson drawn from this experience was, that
up-to-date information on Indonesian social life, social statistics and particularly those
statistics depicting the forces of social resilience at the family and community level had
to be improved. Subsequently, a new Directorate for Social Resilience Statistics1 was
established at the National Statistics Agency (Badan Pusat Statistik, BPS) who joint the
ongoing discussion of what social resilience might mean and how it could be assessed.
This paper is meant to contribute to the internal discussion process.

III. What is social resilience?

A major feature of the phenomenon of social resilience in Indonesia, as well as in other
developing countries facing similar constraints, is its complexity encompassing a
multitude of levels of scale. While individuals and families are at the lower end of the
scale, global ecology and world economic trends and national level politics constitute the
opposite, which either directly affect the situation of the local population or work through
the local environment, the local politico-economic system, mediated by kinship and
neighbourhood networks (cf. Figure 1). The Asian economic crisis had reached its peak
in 1989 and was compounded by an unusually long period of extreme drought. While the
financial and economic repercussions affected the political and economic system most
visibly in the urban centres, at the same time many rural areas suffered from substantive
decreases in food production and subsequent food shortages. Though the impact of the
financial and natural crises did not hit each area with the same vigour, it was the local
communities throughout the archipelago that successfully coped with a multitude of
challenges eventually. The coping strategies and practices developed at the community
and at the family level appear to have been fairly effective in terms of protection provided
to their vulnerable members, i.e. children, women, the elderly, the disabled, and the
poor). This effort seems to have been achieved through the activation of social networks
and institutions of mutual help within and among local communities. Whether or not
local solidarity and sharing practices have been compatible with sustainable utilisation of
environmental resources remains to be seen. Similarly, the role of local socio-economic
factors, such as landownership patterns, type and variation in access to livelihood
activities, and degree of commitment of local political institutions to the empowerment of
communities and families to cope with the impacts of the crisis is unclear. However, an
analytic approach to the forces of social resilience clearly needs to unravel the
relationship of a multitude of factors working at different levels of scale as shown in
Figure 1.

The Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial (ind.) was established at the Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) in July 2001 and has three
sub-directorates covering regional resilience (ketahanan wilayah), environmental resilience (ketahanan lingkungan hidup),
and political and security resilience (ketahanan politik dan keamanan).
F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 5

Figure 1: Levels of Scale in Regard to Assessing Social Resilience Among Local Communities

Protection of vulnerable individuals

Support to vulnerable families/households
Mutual help accross social networks
Empowering local politico-economic system
Sustainability of local environment
Stability/equity within the national pol.-econ.system
Degree and kind of integration into global systems

In a first attempt to sort out the forces of social resilience we need to clearly distinguish
independent and dependent variables2 observable in the process of small-scale systems
(families, communities, local environment) coping with (social, economic, biological,
and psychological) risks induced through integration into large-scale systems (national
policies, global economy, global ecosystems). In doing so, a first working definition of
social resilience can be approached: Local social systems are classified as socially
resilient in terms of the outcome of their coping process with the risks associated to
integration into the large-scale regional, national, global systems. A positive outcome of
this process of coping with large-scale integration would succeed in:
Effective protection of the vulnerable individuals: children, women, the elderly,
the disabled through the institutions of marriage and family;
Effective protection of vulnerable families/households, and vulnerable groups
through institutions of mutual help within and across networks of mutual help
(kinship, neighbourhood, and civic society organisations);
Maintaining environmental sustainability (effective protection of natural
sesources from depletion);
Effectively control violence and resolve conflicts arising from frictions in local
social organization and socialization in the course of integration into larger
systems.
The amount to which these local level outcomes could be achieved will depend on the
locally specific process of interaction in the force-field of societal (large-scale)
factors and communal (small-scale) characteristics as displayed in Figure 2.

This mechanistic differentiation into independent and dependant factors is maintained for the sake of conceptual simplicity.
Analysis will have to accommodate empirical interdependencies between and among the two groups of variables.
F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 6

Figure 2: Social Resilience as Outcome of a Multi-level Process of Social Interaction

Societal Factors:

Socio-economic/ecological System:

Communal Factors:

Local
Degree of integration into
global market economy
(prevalence of waged
/salaried labour,
monetarisation,
mechanisation, modern
technology use, global flow
of capital, exportorientation);
Degree of integration into
urban settings;
Global flow of
information and
knowledge;
Central, regional level
socio-economic/ ecological
policy framework (e.g.
population, health &
education policy).

Local politicoSocial
support

Family
networks/
institutions

economic system

environment

Social organisation of
reproduction: (family
formation; matri- vs.
virilocality, marriage &
kinship systems, principles
of descent, inheritance &
succession)
Social organisation of
production (stratification
and division of labour
according to gender, age,
class, strata);
Social norms according to
ascribed and achieved
status;
Belief systems;
Agency options for
Individual & family survival
and development.

Social Resilience as Outcome:

Degree of protection provided to vulnerable individuals (children, women, the elderly, the disabled);
Degree of support provided to vulnerable families/households (Poor families, single parents, orphans);
Degree of sustainability of environmental resources; degree of social control exerted over violence.

As a result of increasingly thorough integration of developing nations, such as Indonesia,

into the global market economy, along with supply and demand driven global flow of
capital, information and knowledge, even the most remote of contemporary Indonesian
communities have experienced (and been changed through) the introduction of wage
labour, the use of money, the application of electricity and modern technology, and
(export) market production. In addition, the state through successful establishment of
village-based schools, health centres and other basic social service posts along with
uniform administrative institutions - has displaced many traditional social institutions. In
this sense, truly traditional, aboriginal local settlements do not appear to exist anywhere
in contemporary Indonesia anymore.
However, specific traditions, technologies, forms of social organisation (defining rules of
property, group membership and group alliances according to kinship systems and related
principles of descent, inheritance and succession) seem to persist at the local level and are
reflected in the rich variety of locally specific forms of social stratification and customary
division of labour as well as distinct languages and dialects, systems of symbolic
meaning, beliefs and world views. To what extent small-scale traditional life has been
changed fundamentally in function as a result of the ongoing large-scale progresses of
globalisation and nation-building (under the motto of bineka tunggal ika, unity in
diversity) remains to be seen (cf. e.g.(Wallerstein 1974-1979; Wallerstein 1997)).
Nonetheless, the existing variation in local social organisation and prevailing local
cultural traits will allow for identification of causes of success or failure in terms of
local social resilience vis--vis the forces of globalisation and national, provincial, and
district policies.
With this understanding of social resilience two questions emerge. What is the
difference between this concept and the concept of the peoples welfare (kesejahteraan
F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 7

rakyat) as the established major principle of Indonesian social policy? And is social
resilience-oriented policy basically a conservative approach, aimed at keeping traditions
alive, foster controlled processes of evolution or even involution (Geertz 1963) and avoid
fundamental change? An adequate discussion of these questions is beyond the scope of
this paper; however, at this early state of conceptual development the following
(intentional) answers can be given:
The Indonesian social welfare approach comprehensively focuses on the political target
of elevating poor families through various evolutionary stages of economic and social
development to the final (normative) condition of being prosperous. At this final stage
families would have applied the political target of dua anak cukup (two children is
enough), they would show a high degree of moral integrity (manifested as full
participation in religious ceremonies and compliance to formal religious requirements)
and they would have acquired sufficient means to secure their own livelihood as well as
to support less fortunate community members. This evolutionary development appears to
be envisaged largely as the result of beneficial state interventions.
Contrarily, the idea of social resilience would focus on the indigenous potential
within families, communities and local socio-cultural systems in general to adjust
themselves to changing and often threatening conditions imposed by external (global,
national, regional) forces, including state interventions, which often have conflicting
objectives and controversial impacts at the local level. In this sense, social resilience
assessment would be a means to maintain the focus of state policy on empowering its
people rather than to monitor the (paternalistic wish) of social engineering of its
populace.

IV. How to assess social resilience capacity among

local communities?
As explained above, the degree of local-specific social resilience can be defined as a
function of the specific adjustment of communal factors to the risks accompanied by
large-scale politico-economic integration. Any analysis of social resilience differentials
must therefore rely on the appropriate assessment of three groups of factors as
represented in Figure 2, i.e.
(1) Societal factors and
(2) Communal factors as independent though interacting variables, as well as
(3) Social resilience as outcome of this interaction.
Since the patterns of combination and of actual prevalence of the independent
factors will vary across different local communities, nationwide assessment and
analysis of these factors through utilisation of a standardised set of variables would be
largely prohibitive. However, concentration on social resilience as outcome, i.e. an
independently set3, standard definition of dependent variables, as indicated above,
would allow for nationwide comparisons across different communities and regions.
Communities and regions could be classified as e.g. highly resilient, resilient, less
3 I.e. applying an outsiders etic view as opposed to an insiders emic one.
F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 8

resilient, and least resilient and eventually be studied in comparing their respective
specific composition of societal and communal factors responsible for higher or lower
degrees of social resilience.
In operational terms this means that the following work steps would be needed in order to
consolidate the methodology of approaching the complex phenomenon of social
resilience in Indonesia:

STEP I: Nationwide mapping exercise

a) Social resilience mapping: ranking areas according to dependant variables at the
family, the individual, and the community level

Existing data from various BPS (and other governmental) surveys apt to describe the
above independent variables4 could be used in a nationwide mapping exercise resulting
in a nationwide discrimination of provinces, districts and communities according to their
decree of social resilience.
b) Large-scale systems integration mapping: ranking areas according to variables
independent of local influence

Existing data from various BPS (and other governmental) surveys apt to describe the
above independent variables5 could be used in a nationwide mapping exercise resulting
in a nationwide discrimination of provinces, districts and communities according to their
degree of large-scale integration into global markets, global flow of information, and
into urban settings.
c) Map matching: identifying correlating patterns of social resilience and large-scale
integration.

Results of both mapping exercises need to be cross-checked in order to identify

correlating patterns in the combined maps. These patterns could then be used for the
definition of different types of scenarios. Table 1 shows the theoretical distribution of
regions (provinces, districts, communities) according to the possible combinations among
categories used. Thus, if the two scales discriminate regions on a 3-categories-scale (low,
medium, high) each, a maximum of 9 specific types of regions could be identified.
Eventually, these area types could be used for further in-depth examination in the form
of field-studies in selected pilot areas. In these areas, The four extreme types (1,3, 7, and
9) located in the corners of the below matrix might be most suitable for this activity.
Eventually four qualifying example districts could be selected for further study.

4 To be identified by a small working group of BPS staff knowledgeable on the particulars of the census, intercensal survey,
SUSENAS, PODES, 100 villages survey, and other surveys to be selected as major sources.
5 To be identified by a small working group of BPS staff knowledgeable on the surveys particularly addressing economic change.
F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 9

Table 1: Theoretical distribution of regions according to their respective degree of

Degree of Integration vs.
Degree of Resilience

Low integration

Medium integration

High integration

Low resilience

Regions of Type 1

Regions of Type 4

Regions of Type 7

Medium resilience

Regions of Type 2

Regions of Type 5

Regions of Type 8

High resilience

Regions of Type 3

Regions of Type 6

Regions of Type 9

STEP II: Field studies in four selected districts

a) Final selection of example areas and preparations for village and district level
assessment of relevant dimensions of local-specific social organisation.

The process of eventual selection of a manageable number districts and communities to

be further studied should involve a panel of appropriate experts from the national as well
as the regional level. Agreed upon criteria (apart from the fundamental ones mentioned
above) should be well documented.
A special team of BPS officials strengthened by national (and available international)
experts on issues of qualitative methodology should draft assessment guidelines later to
be adjusted in the field. The guidelines should help to assess local-specific patterns of
social organisation shaping the area-specific success or failure in social resilience.
Table 2: Dimensions of social organisation and selected topics for assessment
1

Dimensions of SOCIAL organisation

Reproduction

Production

Political participation

Belief systems / religion

Central assessment topics

Mechanisms and rules of family formation,
comprising kinship organisation, marriage
rules, principles of descent, inheritance and
succession;
Social stratification and division of labour
gender, age, and class; access to and
ownership of means of production (land in
particular); forms of control over local
knowledge; local patterns of occupational
multiplicity; social conditions of access to
formal, informal, and subsistence production;
Prevalence of traditional forms of political
organisation vis--vis formal organisation
according to state laws gender and age
barriers; patron-client relationships; importance
of (former) aristocracy/traditional social status
differentials;
Socio-economic functions of religious
membership/network (justification of personal
(economic) success vis--vis sharing
pressures), psychological functions of religion
in regard to personal identity/integrity threats
posed by large-scale integration of local social
systems.

F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 10

b) Pilot analyses: Identifying relevant dimensions of local-specific social organisation

Resilience-related local forms (and processes) of social organisation would generally

need to observe the following dimensions, which would, however, vary in combination
and relative importance. Some examples are given in Table 2.
Assessment of dimensions and topics related to local-specific social organisation need to
be observed at, and further clarified through direct observation of, various levels
(comprising the village/community, the district, and the province level). Observations
should be done by teams of BPS officials from the central, the province, and the district
level with participation of qualified anthropologists and/or sociologists from either the
central level (LIPI) or respective regional universities.
c) Developing standard procedures for integrated analysis of regional social resilience
constraints and potentials

Depending on the outcome of the above assessment of local-specific levels of social

resilience and the identification of respective challenges as well as opportunities, standard
analysis modules (including operational assessment and analysis guidelines) should be
developed by the teams involved. This process would require integration and
management co-ordination efforts at the national level. These efforts could include the
revision of existing questionnaires and development of new modules/surveys necessary to
close identified data gaps.

STEP III: Going to scale: centrally facilitated empowerment of

regional BPS offices to lead area-specific routine
assessment of social resilience opportunities and
challenges
Once improved assessment methods, and standard reporting procedures are developed,
broad-based training of BPS regional staff (province and district level) would become
necessary. Training material and methodology should focus on the empowerment of
district BPS staff in matters of independent and area-adequate assessment of relevant
local patterns of social organisation shaping the local extent of social resilience to the
challenges and opportunities of globalisation and other forms of large-scale integration.
Provincial BPS staff should be strengthened in supervising local assessment quality as
well as assisting in the overall analysis process.

F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 11

ANNEX I: Outcome Assessment

a) Assessing changing individual vulnerability across the human life span

In discriminating social resilience capacity among different communities and regions

one would necessarily focus on the status of vulnerable individuals and groups within
the context of family and community. In this context, the changing patterns of individual
vulnerability are a function of age and gender as manifested in major stages of the human
lifespan. As depicted in Figure 3 these stages comprise old age, adulthood, adolescence,
school age, preschool age, infancy, and the prenatal period, which in turn is the outcome
of relationships between couples from the same or different stages comprising old age,
adulthood, adolescence, and school age.
Analysis of changes in individual vulnerability would have to account for three
different dimensions comprising (1) comparison of status related indicators (e.g. on
health, nutrition, education, protection, livelihood) within specific lifespan stages across
time (using trends and projections) and (2) examination of the relationship between
status indicators of different lifespan stages (constructing retrospective and prospective
linkages). Contextual changes would make up a third dimension to be taken into account
as societal history when discussing trends and projections, and as life history in
retrospective and prospective analysis.

F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 12

Figure 3: Major Stages and Events within the Human Life Span

Death

First Marriage

Birth

New / Old
Generation

2061

Old
Age
60+ yrs.

2001
2019

Adulthood
18-60 yrs.

1959
2014

Adolescence
13-17 yrs.

1954
2008

School
Age
7-16yrs.

Male fertility span

Female fertility span (15-49 yrs.)

1948

Productive life span (10+ yrs.)

2003

Preschool
Age
2-6 yrs.

1943
2001

Infancy
0-1 yrs.

Old Age

1941

Childhood (0 12 yrs.)

2000

Prenatal
Period
-9 0 mo.

Adulthood
Adolescence

1940

School
Age
Pregnancy & Delivery

Figure 4: Analysis dimensions of change in adolescent vulnerability across the human lifespan

(2047+)
(2027+)

(2037+)

(1985+)

(1995+)

(1980+)

(1990+)

Adolescence

Adolescence

Old Age

(2057+)

(2067+)

(2015+)

(2025+)

(2005+)

Adulthood

(2000+)

(2010+)

(2020+)

Adolescence
13-17 yrs.

Adolescence

Adolescence

(1994+)
(1974+)

(1984+)

School
Age
7-16 yrs.

(1969+)

(1979+)

Preschool
Age

(1967+)

(1977+)

(1966+)

(1976+)

(2004+)

(2014+)

(1999+)

(2009+)

(1997+)

(2007+)

.(1996+)

(2006+)

(1989+)

(1987+)

Infancy
(1986+)

Individual status to be assessed:

PAST

PRESENT

FUTURE

Prenatal
Period

Change analysis linkages:

Contextual change:

Projection

Prospective

Societal history

Trend

Retrospective

Life history

F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

SECOND DRAFT for discussion (January 2002), Page 13

Figure 4 attempts to demonstrate the intricate web of change in individual status by

focusing on the cohort of youths entering adolescence (as one vulnerable group) in 2001.
Assessment of factors that influenced present adolescent life and subsequent future
implications would need to account for past trends of data dated back as far as 1966. The
figure also shows that political options missed in the past cannot be compensated quickly.
Results of potential comprehensive interventions based on current analysis and covering
all major stages in the human lifespan could become visible in national statistics as late as
in the year 2067.

F. Betke, Direktorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

FIRST DRAFT for discussion (October 2001), Page 14

Table 3:

Relationship between major lifespan stages and different dimensions of analysis

attributing the social organisation of production and human reproduction
Assessment units and respective analysis dimensions:

Major and respective

strategic lifespan stages
Individual
1.

Old Age, comprising

Female old age (60+ th.)
Male old age (60+ th.)

2.

3.

Manhood, 6 comprising
Working age (10+ th.)
Married life
Pre-marital life
Male reproductive and productive age (15+ th.)
Womanhood, comprising
Working age (10+ th.)
Post-reproductive and productive age (50+ th.)
Married Life
Pregnancy and delivery (15-49 th.)
Pre-marital life
Reproductive and productive age (15-49 th.)

Family/ Community/
Society

Processes of aging

4.

Youth comprising
Female and male Adolescence (13-18 th.)
Female and male School age (7-15 th.)

5.

Early childhood comprising

Female and male Pre-school age (2 - 6 th.)
Female and male Infancy (0 - <2 th.)

Assessment Foci :

Dyad / Family / Community

Processes of male
livelihood and
reproduction
Processes of female
livelihood and
reproduction

Processes of
child growth and
development

Survival and Development

Status

Dynamics
of domestic
(dyadic)
interaction
between
spouses,
between parents
and children,
between siblings,
between
grandparents and
grandchildren

Dynamics
of social
support
for bride and
groom,
primary care
givers

Communal &
societal
mechanisms
controling
nuptiality and fertility,
property rights, rules of
descent, inheritance and
succession,

as well as
as well as
the disabled,
the elderly
and the
environment

Care and Protection

Behaviour

determining
division of labour,
equity and equality,
use of violence,
utilisation of the
environment

Protection, Participation
and Empowerment
Opportunities

The term Manhood indicates male participation and responsibility in the process of reproduction (in terms of determining the frequency of female pregnancies) as well as in productive life in
general, whereas the term Womanhood emphasises the multiple and complementary roles in human reproduction (in pregnancy, giving birth, and breast-feeding) as well as in productive life.

F. Betke, Directorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

FIRST DRAFT for discussion (October 2001), Page 15

References
Appadurai, Arjun (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. In
Featherstone, Mike , ed. (1990), pp. 295-310
Betke, Friedhelm (2001). The Family-in Focus Approach: Policy-oriented monitoring and analysis
of Human Development in Indonesia. Innocenti Working Papers No. 83. UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre: Florence, Italy
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977a). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977b). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (1995). Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural
Anthropology. Forth impression 1998. London: Pluto Press
Featherstone, Mike (1990). Global Culture. Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London:
Sage
Geddes, Bill, Jenny Hughes and Joe Remenyi, eds. (1994). Antropology and Third World
Development. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press
Geertz, C. (1963). Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia.
Berkeley, University of Califiornia Press.
Goody, Jack (1976). Production and Reproduction. A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain.
Fourth reprint 1994. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Social
Anthropology, 17)
Jenks, Chris, ed. (1993). Cultural Reproduction. New York: Routledge
Levinger, Beryl (1996). Critical Transitions: Human Capacity Development Across the Lifespan.
Newton, MA, USA: Education Development Center, Inc.
Rapport, Nigel and Joanna Overing (2000). Social and Cultural Anthropology. The Key Concepts.
New York: Routledge
Robertson, A.F. (1991). Beyond the Family. The Social Organization of Human Reproduction.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974-1979). The Modern World System (3 vols). New York: Academic
Press
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1997). The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Wilk, Richard R. (1996). Economics and Cultures. Foundations of Economic Anthropology.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press

F. Betke, Directorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

FIRST DRAFT for discussion (October 2001), Page 16

F. Betke, Directorat Statistik Ketahanan Sosial, Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia