Dayana Permatasari | 21040115120010

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SPATIAL PATTERNS OF INDONESIA’S RECENT

URBANISATION

THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF URBANISATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Developing countries happen when the countries has lower level of capita
income with different global economic situation than that be valid when the cities of
developed world were growing in the past. In the new research, urbanisation in
development countries has been relevanted with globalisation specialized on
comonities and services. The result of process has integration of varyous part in the
world, and most notably the linkage of large city in a global financial system( Dicken,
1992; Cho, 1997; Beaverstock and Boardwell,2000). The function of cities was
control, coornation, and serve of global capital but global cities can disconnect of
relevant with local economic activities. So, this result can disparities between urban
and rural. In education world about reseach of effect globalisation on urbanisation,
empirical studies have largely focused to development word (friedman, 1986, 2001;
Sassen, 1991,1994,2001; shacar,1994), meanwhile much less studies focus to
process of developing world(Yeung,1996; Yeung and Lo,1996; Firman, 1998; Gugler,
2002; Ng and Hill, 2003). The global cities has been managed of ecomomic
investation can be more benefit to countries, but the power to realization and
promoted that project seem questionable.
Urbanisation in South and Southeast asia make distinction between rural and
urban. Both agriculture and non-agriculture was side by side with urban centres but
cities must maintain sustaining urban life have been pushed far beyond the city’s
administrative bondaries into rural economy. This phenomenon has called “mega
urbanisation”. The current of urbanisation in development countries implicate big
countries into global economy, pushed by acculation at a global scale. As Douglass
(2001; 237) has argued, Globalisation has resulted restructuring in pasific asia
involving spatial polarisation in a few urban centres. So in this article will discusses
about social and political. Indonesia’s recent urban development, part examines the
development and spatial pattern, and the last was conclusions from the study.
INDONESIA’S RECENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Three fifth of population focused in java, so the population distribution in indonesia is
uneven.which comparises about 7% of total area. Effect of urbanisation and
 Dayana Permatasari | 21040115120010

economic development was dominated by dosmetic and foreign invesment in the big
cities. But the development of big countries wasn’t
strengthening relationship between rural and urban. As matter of fact, large cities like
jakarta was growt rapidly, meanwhile small town in java tended to stagnate
(Gardiner, 1997b: 168). By the mid-1990 Indonesia growing of invesment led
development is not only industrial sectore, but also financial, service, bank and
hotel. The property sectore was lucrative business in the large city in Indonesia. So
economic activities were focused in large cities, the policies were intend to promote
export of non-oil commodities. The key point of regulation was focused developent in
java because the cities have better facilities and infrastructure needed for
internasional development.
When asian crisis of the late 1990’s, this situation is impact specific to large cities in
Indonesia, example rapid increase in the number of unemployed and many people
back to their village to find another job. The new policies of regional decentralisation
have impact on urbanisation and urban development, under these two law was
district and municipality. However, the metropolitant area like jakarta and cities have
abudant natural resources will increased number of urbanisation because many
people have employed opportubities and that affect the pattern of urbanisation.
DATA AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS
This study take data from Nasional Population Censuses of 1980, 1990, and 2000.
But of the 2000 census was problame due to political and economic crisis in the
country( Hull,2001). The estimate of scale are in the order of 460.000 urban and 1,9
million rural permanent resident (CBD, 2001: xxxix), and 4,5 million person or 2,2%
of total population is missing. The central Board of statistic (CBD) use scoring
technical system to separate of catagories as rural and urban but this method have
deficiency because that indicator can’t different about quality of facilities.
Nevertheless, the classification can use at national level. This analysis aim to find
pattern of demographic and spacial urbanisation, but this method can’t use for
Indonesia because expansion of large city.
DEMOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS
Urban population in indonesia increased every years, example in period 2000 urban
populaation in indonesia increased from 55,4 million to 85,2 million, almost of them
move to urban area. Between 1980 and 1990 urban population growth 5,37 % per
annum in Indonesia, but between 1990 and 2000 is decline become 4,40 % per
 Dayana Permatasari | 21040115120010

annum. In 1980 to 1985 urban population growth in indonesia because migration and
reclassification of administrative areas (ESCAP-UN, 1993: 11-16). Population growth
in Jakarta Metropolitan area between 1980-1990 to move from rural to urban zone.
The employed in urban special serve sector, accounting for most 56% of all urban
employedment. It’s contrast, employment in agricultural sector was dwindle from 9,7
% to 4,7% in 2000 (Hugo, 1996: 137)
SPATIAL PATTERNS
Large cities have urban population was growth rapidly, every years number of
population increased of millionare cities. In 1950, Jakarta had a population more
than one million, that number of increased was not incluted another large cities like
surabaya, medan, kalimantan,etc. Sector industry around jakarta made largely
resulted from migration to outside java. Interegional migration area such as Bekasi
and Bogor. Effect of urbanisation and migration is diminish area of agriculture and
area of non- agriculture increase every years like resident, apartement, and hotel.
Urban spatial development in java take corridor to connect cities with another cities
like jakarta and Bandung, Jogja semarang, and Malang Surabaya, resulting is hazy
different between rural and urban. A notable feature is increasing mixture of
agriculture and industrial economic activities. The population of jakarta city as
proportion of jabodetabek from 54,6% to 43,2% between 1980 and 1990. In
metropolitan Surabaya (GerbangKertosusila), the population of surabaya cities
relative to declined from 34% to 31.8% between 1990 and 2000. Its similiar
processes are also taking places in Semarang and Jogja. Small and medium cities in
indonesia growth faster in outside of indonesia than in java. This look like other city
than java can manage agriculture and natural resources.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Lately most of population in indonesia live in urban area. More than 20% urban
population fill in jakarta Metropolitan area. Some province outside java have
incerased population so hight because the economic support by natural resources,
but the cities growth with not following of long term plan. Urban spacial in java
development with form to connect many of large cities, so that effecive to nebulous
between rural and urban. The outskirt experience growth population rapidly but
whereas city core are stagnation. The national economic development policies of
1980s to mid 1990 focused on the export of non oil product, but when cricital happen
in Indonesia has negatively affected urbanisation is increase unemployement level
 Dayana Permatasari | 21040115120010

in urban area. The test about impact urbanisation isn’t correct because that regulaion
have only been implemented since 2001 ( New Regional Autonomy policy as
outlined in the 22/1999 and 25/1999). Until the end of 1990s, the atmosphere
economic development dominate by domestic and foreign investmen, notably in
manufacturing, financial, services and property sectore. This study has purpose to
know spatial patterns of urbanisation in Indonesia by emploment census. But
analysis included of social-economic, political process and demographic
phenomenon. Nevertheless, this empirical can be provides a useful analysis
research of processes driving urbanisation.