Today, February 3, 2026, I attended the public discussion and book launch entitled "Pertanian & Masalah Generasi" (Agriculture and the Generation Problem), which was organized by the AKATIGA Center for Social Analysis in Bandung, serving as a significant intellectual gathering to address the future of rural livelihoods. The event featured Professor Ben White, an emeritus professor from the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, whose decades of research in Indonesia provided the backbone for the discussion.
Moderated by Mrs Aprilia Ambarwati from AKATIGA, the forum was not merely a book launch but a critical intervention into the discourse of agrarian studies. The event highlighted the collaboration between various institutions, including INSISTPress, the Center for Environment and Sustainability Science, and the Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies, all aiming to bring complex academic theories down to the practical realities of Indonesian farmers. As the responders, there were Mr. Angga Dwiartama, Prof. Iwan Setiawan, and Mrs Charina Chazali.
Moderated by Mrs Aprilia Ambarwati from AKATIGA, the forum was not merely a book launch but a critical intervention into the discourse of agrarian studies. The event highlighted the collaboration between various institutions, including INSISTPress, the Center for Environment and Sustainability Science, and the Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies, all aiming to bring complex academic theories down to the practical realities of Indonesian farmers. As the responders, there were Mr. Angga Dwiartama, Prof. Iwan Setiawan, and Mrs Charina Chazali.
Mr. Achmad Choirudin from INSISTPress opened the substantive portion of the event by contextualizing the book within the broader "Small Books, Big Issues" series. He emphasized that this series—originally published in English and now translated into Indonesian—aims to democratize knowledge by making high-level agrarian theory accessible to activists, students, and farmers. He noted that the book is not treated as a commercial commodity but as a living document meant to spark debate. The publisher’s introduction set the stage for a discussion that would challenge the romanticized and often erroneous views held by policymakers regarding rural development and the regeneration of the agricultural workforce.
In his keynote presentation, Professor Ben White began by addressing the statistical reality that looms over the agricultural sector: the phenomenon of the aging farmer. Drawing on census data from 1983 to the present, White illustrated a drastic demographic shift. Decades ago, farmers under the age of 30 constituted a significant portion of the workforce, roughly 25%. Today, that number has plummeted to a small minority, while the percentage of farmers over the age of 55 has doubled to nearly 40% or 50%. This "greying" of the farm sector is often interpreted as a crisis of interest, leading to a panic that the younger generation has abandoned the village for the allure of the city.
However, Prof White moved quickly to debunk the dominant myth surrounding this statistic: the idea that young people are simply lazy, unpatriotic, or psychologically averse to getting their hands dirty. He argued that framing the problem as one of "mental attitude" is a convenient way for the state to avoid addressing structural inequalities. By blaming the youth for their lack of interest, policymakers absolve themselves of the responsibility to fix the broken agrarian structure. White insisted that the problem is not that youth do not "want" to farm, but that they effectively "cannot" farm under current economic conditions.
A central theme of Prof White’s analysis was the intergenerational "chicken and egg" dilemma regarding land control. He posed the question: Is it that the old farmers cannot stop farming because their children won't start, or is it that the children cannot start because the old farmers won't stop? The reality is often the latter. With increased life expectancy in rural Indonesia, farmers are living and working well into their 70s. Because there is no state pension or social safety net for these elderly farmers, they must hold onto their land and control the harvest proceeds to survive, leaving no room for their adult children to take over.
This dynamic creates a prolonged period of "waithood" for rural youth. Prof White explained that a young person graduating from high school at 18 cannot be expected to wait until their parents pass away—potentially another 20 or 30 years—to become a farmer. During this period of social suspension, they are technically adults but lack the economic independence to marry, build a house, or support a family. Consequently, migration or seeking off-farm work becomes not a lifestyle choice but a survival imperative. They leave the village because remaining there often means working as unpaid family labor with no autonomy over the fruits of their hard work.
Prof White also provided a scathing critique of the government’s "Petani Milenial" (Millennial Farmer) programs. He referenced a government-issued book that showcases a "successful" young farmer named Kenzy, who uses drones, robots, and manages hundreds of hectares. Prof White argued that this vision is dangerously detached from reality. The vast majority of rural youth in Java and elsewhere might inherit, at best, 0.3 hectares of land. Promoting a vision of farming that requires massive capital, high technology, and hundreds of hectares alienates the average rural youth, effectively telling them that unless they can become a corporate-style entrepreneur, there is no place for them in agriculture.
Furthermore, Prof White criticized the state’s reliance on "Food Estate" projects—large-scale, corporate-managed agricultural plantations—as a solution to food security. He recited a history of failure, from the Dutch colonial attempts to the failed rice projects in Papua and Kalimantan under various Indonesian administrations. These top-down projects consistently fail because they ignore local ecology and labor dynamics. Prof White argued that if the trillions of rupiah poured into these failed corporate estates were instead redirected to support smallholder farmers, Indonesia would likely see far greater productivity and sustainability.
Defining the path forward, Prof White outlined three non-negotiable conditions required for youth to return to farming, based on global research. The first is access to land. Youth are interested in farming, but only if it is commercially viable. They do not wish to inherit the poverty and subsistence struggle of their parents. Without land redistribution or effective access to productive assets, no amount of "mindset training" will convince a rational young person to become a farmer.
The second condition is "pluriactivity." Prof White noted that successful small farmers almost everywhere in the world, from the Netherlands to Japan, do not rely solely on agriculture. They mix farming with other income sources—trading, small businesses, or wage labor. The government’s insistence on creating "full-time" farmers is misguided. Policies should instead support this mixed-income model, acknowledging that diverse income streams are what make smallholder households resilient against crop failures and market price fluctuations.
The third condition is a supportive rural environment. Youth need to feel that living in a village does not mean being cut off from modernity. This encompasses physical infrastructure like roads and internet access, but also social and cultural infrastructure. The village must be a place where one can live a dignified life, raise a family, and participate in democratic processes. If the village remains a site of stagnation and underdevelopment, the exodus of youth will continue regardless of agricultural potential.
Following the keynote, Mrs Charina Chazali from AKATIGA enriched the discussion with specific case studies from their "Becoming a Young Farmer" research in Flores. She introduced the story of Ian, a 17-year-old who chose to work as a wage laborer on neighbors' farms for 40,000 rupiah a day rather than working on his parents' land. His mother viewed him as lazy, but Ian’s choice was economically rational: working for neighbors provided immediate cash he could control, whereas working for his parents was unpaid. This illustrated the internal friction within families that macro-statistics often hide.
Mrs Chazali used these stories to highlight the concept of "constrained agency." She argued that we must stop viewing rural youth as either passive victims of structure or heroic agents of change. Instead, they are navigating a narrow set of options. Their decisions—to wait, to migrate, to negotiate, or to rebel—are active responses to a restrictive environment. She also touched upon the gendered dimensions of this struggle, noting how inheritance laws and customs often exclude women, further complicating the regeneration of the farming workforce.
The second responder, Mr Angga Dwiartama from SITH ITB, expanded on the critique of the "entrepreneurial" framing of farming. He noted that programs like the West Java "Petani Milenial" treat farming purely as a business transaction, pushing youth into high-risk contracts and debt. This approach strips farming of its social and ecological context. He contrasted this with the concept of "play farming" or community-based farming, where the goal isn't just yield maximization but community resilience and lifestyle balance, suggesting that the definition of a "farmer" needs to be more fluid than the state admits.
Mr. Angga also discussed the phenomenon of "reverse migration," where urban dwellers are moving to rural areas to farm. While this seems positive, he warned it could lead to gentrification or new forms of inequality if not managed well. However, it also opens up space for new innovations. He emphasized that the goal shouldn't necessarily be to force youth to stay in villages, but to create an ecosystem where returning is a viable and attractive option. He questioned whether we are trying to save "farmers" (the people) or "agriculture" (the production), noting that these two goals sometimes require different strategies.
The third responder, Prof. Iwan Setiawan from the Faculty of Agriculture, UNPAD, addressed the issue of "brain drain" versus "brain gain." He acknowledged that the smartest young people often leave the villages, which is a rational response to the lack of opportunity. However, he pointed to examples from Japan and returning Indonesian migrant workers (TKI) who bring back capital, discipline, and new skills. This "brain gain" can revitalize villages, but only if there are mechanisms to integrate these returnees into the local economy effectively.
Prof Iwan also highlighted a critical failure in the Indonesian agricultural value chain: the lack of local processing. He pointed out that in places like Thailand, farmers benefit from selling not just the rice grain, but also processed by-products like husks and straw. In Indonesia, farmers typically sell raw grain (gabah) at low prices, losing out on the value-added stages. If villages could become centers of processing and production rather than just extraction, they would offer the kind of skilled, higher-income jobs that educated youth desire.
During the Q&A session, the discussion turned to the "feminization of migration," particularly in regions like Indramayu. Participants raised concerns about how the exodus of women for domestic work abroad impacts the agricultural labor force. White responded by noting that while remittances are a lifeline, they are rarely sufficient to buy land or fundamentally change the family's class position. Migration is often a defensive strategy to pay for healthcare or education debts, rather than a strategy for capital accumulation to invest in farming.
Another significant question raised was the future of rice farming specifically. A doctoral student questioned whether rice farming—historically less profitable than horticulture—would survive as the older generation dies out. Prof White and the panelists suggested that smallholder rice farming faces an existential threat unless it is reorganized. They advocated for collective farming models or cooperatives that allow small farmers to pool resources, thereby achieving economies of scale without handing over the land to large corporations.
The issue of land reform was brought up as a potential solution. Prof White reminded the audience of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) of 1960, which contains provisions that are still relevant but largely ignored. Specifically, he pointed to the prohibition of "absentee ownership," which bans city dwellers from owning agricultural land they do not cultivate. Enforcing this law could potentially free up vast amounts of land currently held for speculation by urban elites, making it available for landless rural youth who actually want to farm.
The concept of "Human Capital" was heavily critiqued in the final segments of the discussion. Prof White urged the audience to stop thinking of youth as tools to be sharpened for economic growth. This instrumentalist view dehumanizes them and ignores their desires for autonomy and dignity. Instead, youth should be viewed as citizens with rights—the right to land, the right to work, and the right to a future. The focus must shift from "fixing the youth" to "fixing the structure" that excludes them.
In closing, the discussion emphasized that there is no single silver bullet. The regeneration of the farming sector requires a multi-pronged approach: legal reform to redistribute land, economic support for pluriactivity, and a cultural shift that values the rural lifestyle. The event concluded with a reminder that the disappearance of the peasant class is not inevitable; it is a result of political choices. If the government continues to prioritize corporate food estates over smallholder support, the countryside will indeed be emptied.
Ultimately, the session served as a powerful call to action. It bridged the gap between academic theory and the harsh realities of the rice paddy. The takeaways were clear: youth are not abandoning agriculture because they hate it, but because the current system offers them no future within it. Saving Indonesian agriculture requires listening to these young people—not to lecture them on mindset, but to understand the structural barriers they face and to dismantle those barriers through policy, land reform, and community action.
I would like to share with you the slides from Prof. Ben, as well as all seven books from INSISTPress on the Farmers and Agrarian Change Serials in the Indonesian version. Here they are, happy learning and enjoying!
In his keynote presentation, Professor Ben White began by addressing the statistical reality that looms over the agricultural sector: the phenomenon of the aging farmer. Drawing on census data from 1983 to the present, White illustrated a drastic demographic shift. Decades ago, farmers under the age of 30 constituted a significant portion of the workforce, roughly 25%. Today, that number has plummeted to a small minority, while the percentage of farmers over the age of 55 has doubled to nearly 40% or 50%. This "greying" of the farm sector is often interpreted as a crisis of interest, leading to a panic that the younger generation has abandoned the village for the allure of the city.
However, Prof White moved quickly to debunk the dominant myth surrounding this statistic: the idea that young people are simply lazy, unpatriotic, or psychologically averse to getting their hands dirty. He argued that framing the problem as one of "mental attitude" is a convenient way for the state to avoid addressing structural inequalities. By blaming the youth for their lack of interest, policymakers absolve themselves of the responsibility to fix the broken agrarian structure. White insisted that the problem is not that youth do not "want" to farm, but that they effectively "cannot" farm under current economic conditions.
A central theme of Prof White’s analysis was the intergenerational "chicken and egg" dilemma regarding land control. He posed the question: Is it that the old farmers cannot stop farming because their children won't start, or is it that the children cannot start because the old farmers won't stop? The reality is often the latter. With increased life expectancy in rural Indonesia, farmers are living and working well into their 70s. Because there is no state pension or social safety net for these elderly farmers, they must hold onto their land and control the harvest proceeds to survive, leaving no room for their adult children to take over.
This dynamic creates a prolonged period of "waithood" for rural youth. Prof White explained that a young person graduating from high school at 18 cannot be expected to wait until their parents pass away—potentially another 20 or 30 years—to become a farmer. During this period of social suspension, they are technically adults but lack the economic independence to marry, build a house, or support a family. Consequently, migration or seeking off-farm work becomes not a lifestyle choice but a survival imperative. They leave the village because remaining there often means working as unpaid family labor with no autonomy over the fruits of their hard work.
Prof White also provided a scathing critique of the government’s "Petani Milenial" (Millennial Farmer) programs. He referenced a government-issued book that showcases a "successful" young farmer named Kenzy, who uses drones, robots, and manages hundreds of hectares. Prof White argued that this vision is dangerously detached from reality. The vast majority of rural youth in Java and elsewhere might inherit, at best, 0.3 hectares of land. Promoting a vision of farming that requires massive capital, high technology, and hundreds of hectares alienates the average rural youth, effectively telling them that unless they can become a corporate-style entrepreneur, there is no place for them in agriculture.
Furthermore, Prof White criticized the state’s reliance on "Food Estate" projects—large-scale, corporate-managed agricultural plantations—as a solution to food security. He recited a history of failure, from the Dutch colonial attempts to the failed rice projects in Papua and Kalimantan under various Indonesian administrations. These top-down projects consistently fail because they ignore local ecology and labor dynamics. Prof White argued that if the trillions of rupiah poured into these failed corporate estates were instead redirected to support smallholder farmers, Indonesia would likely see far greater productivity and sustainability.
Defining the path forward, Prof White outlined three non-negotiable conditions required for youth to return to farming, based on global research. The first is access to land. Youth are interested in farming, but only if it is commercially viable. They do not wish to inherit the poverty and subsistence struggle of their parents. Without land redistribution or effective access to productive assets, no amount of "mindset training" will convince a rational young person to become a farmer.
The second condition is "pluriactivity." Prof White noted that successful small farmers almost everywhere in the world, from the Netherlands to Japan, do not rely solely on agriculture. They mix farming with other income sources—trading, small businesses, or wage labor. The government’s insistence on creating "full-time" farmers is misguided. Policies should instead support this mixed-income model, acknowledging that diverse income streams are what make smallholder households resilient against crop failures and market price fluctuations.
The third condition is a supportive rural environment. Youth need to feel that living in a village does not mean being cut off from modernity. This encompasses physical infrastructure like roads and internet access, but also social and cultural infrastructure. The village must be a place where one can live a dignified life, raise a family, and participate in democratic processes. If the village remains a site of stagnation and underdevelopment, the exodus of youth will continue regardless of agricultural potential.
Following the keynote, Mrs Charina Chazali from AKATIGA enriched the discussion with specific case studies from their "Becoming a Young Farmer" research in Flores. She introduced the story of Ian, a 17-year-old who chose to work as a wage laborer on neighbors' farms for 40,000 rupiah a day rather than working on his parents' land. His mother viewed him as lazy, but Ian’s choice was economically rational: working for neighbors provided immediate cash he could control, whereas working for his parents was unpaid. This illustrated the internal friction within families that macro-statistics often hide.
Mrs Chazali used these stories to highlight the concept of "constrained agency." She argued that we must stop viewing rural youth as either passive victims of structure or heroic agents of change. Instead, they are navigating a narrow set of options. Their decisions—to wait, to migrate, to negotiate, or to rebel—are active responses to a restrictive environment. She also touched upon the gendered dimensions of this struggle, noting how inheritance laws and customs often exclude women, further complicating the regeneration of the farming workforce.
The second responder, Mr Angga Dwiartama from SITH ITB, expanded on the critique of the "entrepreneurial" framing of farming. He noted that programs like the West Java "Petani Milenial" treat farming purely as a business transaction, pushing youth into high-risk contracts and debt. This approach strips farming of its social and ecological context. He contrasted this with the concept of "play farming" or community-based farming, where the goal isn't just yield maximization but community resilience and lifestyle balance, suggesting that the definition of a "farmer" needs to be more fluid than the state admits.
Mr. Angga also discussed the phenomenon of "reverse migration," where urban dwellers are moving to rural areas to farm. While this seems positive, he warned it could lead to gentrification or new forms of inequality if not managed well. However, it also opens up space for new innovations. He emphasized that the goal shouldn't necessarily be to force youth to stay in villages, but to create an ecosystem where returning is a viable and attractive option. He questioned whether we are trying to save "farmers" (the people) or "agriculture" (the production), noting that these two goals sometimes require different strategies.
The third responder, Prof. Iwan Setiawan from the Faculty of Agriculture, UNPAD, addressed the issue of "brain drain" versus "brain gain." He acknowledged that the smartest young people often leave the villages, which is a rational response to the lack of opportunity. However, he pointed to examples from Japan and returning Indonesian migrant workers (TKI) who bring back capital, discipline, and new skills. This "brain gain" can revitalize villages, but only if there are mechanisms to integrate these returnees into the local economy effectively.
Prof Iwan also highlighted a critical failure in the Indonesian agricultural value chain: the lack of local processing. He pointed out that in places like Thailand, farmers benefit from selling not just the rice grain, but also processed by-products like husks and straw. In Indonesia, farmers typically sell raw grain (gabah) at low prices, losing out on the value-added stages. If villages could become centers of processing and production rather than just extraction, they would offer the kind of skilled, higher-income jobs that educated youth desire.
During the Q&A session, the discussion turned to the "feminization of migration," particularly in regions like Indramayu. Participants raised concerns about how the exodus of women for domestic work abroad impacts the agricultural labor force. White responded by noting that while remittances are a lifeline, they are rarely sufficient to buy land or fundamentally change the family's class position. Migration is often a defensive strategy to pay for healthcare or education debts, rather than a strategy for capital accumulation to invest in farming.
Another significant question raised was the future of rice farming specifically. A doctoral student questioned whether rice farming—historically less profitable than horticulture—would survive as the older generation dies out. Prof White and the panelists suggested that smallholder rice farming faces an existential threat unless it is reorganized. They advocated for collective farming models or cooperatives that allow small farmers to pool resources, thereby achieving economies of scale without handing over the land to large corporations.
The issue of land reform was brought up as a potential solution. Prof White reminded the audience of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) of 1960, which contains provisions that are still relevant but largely ignored. Specifically, he pointed to the prohibition of "absentee ownership," which bans city dwellers from owning agricultural land they do not cultivate. Enforcing this law could potentially free up vast amounts of land currently held for speculation by urban elites, making it available for landless rural youth who actually want to farm.
The concept of "Human Capital" was heavily critiqued in the final segments of the discussion. Prof White urged the audience to stop thinking of youth as tools to be sharpened for economic growth. This instrumentalist view dehumanizes them and ignores their desires for autonomy and dignity. Instead, youth should be viewed as citizens with rights—the right to land, the right to work, and the right to a future. The focus must shift from "fixing the youth" to "fixing the structure" that excludes them.
In closing, the discussion emphasized that there is no single silver bullet. The regeneration of the farming sector requires a multi-pronged approach: legal reform to redistribute land, economic support for pluriactivity, and a cultural shift that values the rural lifestyle. The event concluded with a reminder that the disappearance of the peasant class is not inevitable; it is a result of political choices. If the government continues to prioritize corporate food estates over smallholder support, the countryside will indeed be emptied.
Ultimately, the session served as a powerful call to action. It bridged the gap between academic theory and the harsh realities of the rice paddy. The takeaways were clear: youth are not abandoning agriculture because they hate it, but because the current system offers them no future within it. Saving Indonesian agriculture requires listening to these young people—not to lecture them on mindset, but to understand the structural barriers they face and to dismantle those barriers through policy, land reform, and community action.
I would like to share with you the slides from Prof. Ben, as well as all seven books from INSISTPress on the Farmers and Agrarian Change Serials in the Indonesian version. Here they are, happy learning and enjoying!
Here is the recording of the discussion.
Thank you for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment