VULNERABILITY OF FARM WORKERS AT THE WELFARE LEVEL IN PURBALINGGA DISTRICT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i3.8005Keywords:
Agricultural Vulnerability; Land Ownership; Rural Welfare; Farmer Empowerment; Purbalingga.Abstract
Agricultural laborers in rural areas are increasingly vulnerable due to limited land ownership, rising operational costs, and stagnant agricultural skills, conditions that also characterize Karangtengah Village in Purbalingga Regency and threaten the sustainability of farming as a primary livelihood. This study aims to analyze the forms and underlying causes of vulnerability among agricultural laborers and examine their impact on welfare levels. Using a qualitative descriptive method with a case study approach, data were collected through observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis, and analyzed using an interactive model of Miles and Huberman Interactive Model that involves data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing to capture the dynamics of vulnerability, access, and adaptation. The findings show that land ownership is concentrated among a small number of actors, production costs are relatively high, and agricultural activities remain highly dependent on external inputs such as machinery and chemical fertilizers. In addition, limited knowledge, weak regeneration due to low youth involvement, and dependence on informal credit systems (“bank titil”) further exacerbate vulnerability. The novelty of this study lies in its localized analysis at the village level, which highlights the interconnectedness of structural inequality, sociocultural constraints, and adaptive limitations in shaping multidimensional vulnerability among agricultural laborers an aspect often overlooked in broader regional studies. In conclusion, reducing vulnerability requires integrated strategies, including community empowerment, equitable access to land, capacity building, and the development of diversified and sustainable agricultural systems.
References
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2023). Statistik Pertanian Indonesia 2023. Jakarta: BPS.
Bryceson, D. (2002). The Scramble in Africa: Reorienting Rural Livelihoods. World Development, 30(5), 725–739.
Suhartini, E. (2019). Ketimpangan Agraria dan Kerentanan Sosial Ekonomi Petani di Pedesaan.
Jurnal Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian, 15(2), 87–98.
Susanto, A. (2021). Inovasi Teknologi Pertanian dalam Meningkatkan Produktivitas Petani Kecil. Jurnal Pembangunan dan Agribisnis, 9(1), 45–56.
Winoto, J. (2018). Struktur Agraria dan Kemiskinan Pedesaan di Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan Indonesia, 19(3), 210–225.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Moleong, L. J. (2017). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya. Sugiyono. (2019). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bryceson, D. (2002). The Scramble in Africa: Reorienting Rural Livelihoods. World Development, 30(5), 725–739.
Setiawan, R. (2020). Diversifikasi Pertanian sebagai Strategi Penguatan Ekonomi Pedesaan.
Jurnal Ekonomi Agraria, 8(2), 101–112.
Suhartini, E. (2019). Ketimpangan Agraria dan Kerentanan Sosial Ekonomi Petani di Pedesaan.
Jurnal Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian, 15(2), 87–98.
Susanto, A. (2021). Inovasi Teknologi Pertanian dalam Meningkatkan Produktivitas Petani Kecil. Jurnal Pembangunan dan Agribisnis, 9(1), 45–56.
Winoto, J. (2018). Struktur Agraria dan Kemiskinan Pedesaan di Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan Indonesia, 19(3), 210–225.
Sari, D. (2022). Akses Permodalan Petani Kecil dan Peran Lembaga Keuangan Informal di Pedesaan. Jurnal Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Indonesia, 12(1), 34–46.
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development, 27(12), 2021–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7
Chambers, R. (1989). Vulnerability, Coping and Policy. IDS Bulletin, 20(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1989.mp20002001.x
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press.
Moser, C. (1998). The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies. World Development, 26(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10015-8
Rigg, J. (2006). Land, Farming, Livelihoods, and Poverty: Rethinking the Links in the Rural South. World Development, 34(1), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.015
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Institute of Development Studies.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge.
Whitehead, A., & Tsikata, D. (2003). Policy Discourses on Women’s Land Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Implications of the Re-turn to the Customary. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1–2), 67–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0366.00051
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famin
.png)
