HA  PERAN MODAL SOSIAL DALAM PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN PRODUKSI DAN RELASI PRODUKSI PEMBUDIDAYA RUMPUT LAUT DI DESA PUNAGA  KABUPATEN TAKALAR

Harnita Agusanty; Ratnawati Tahir; Andi Khaeriyah; Asni Anwar; Andi Adri Arief; Andi Azka Yuriant Pallampa

doi:10.35911/torani.v8i2.44202

Authors

Harnita Agusanty Program Studi Budidaya Perairan, Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar
Ratnawati Tahir Program Studi Agribisnis, Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar
Andi Khaeriyah Program Studi Budidaya Perairan, Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar
Asni Anwar Program Studi Budidaya Perairan, Fakultas Pertanian, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar
Andi Adri Arief Program Studi Agrobisnis Perikanan, Departemen Perikanan, Fakultas Ilmu Kelautan dan Perikanan, Universitas Hasanuddin
Andi Azka Yuriant Pallampa Program Studi Manajemen Sumberdaya Perairan, Departemen Perikanan, Fakultas Ilmu Kelautan dan Perikanan, Universitas Hasanuddin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35911/torani.v8i2.44202

Keywords:

Social capital, seaweed, patron client, inequality, seaweed farmer

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the role of social capital in production decision-making and the formation of production relations among seaweed farmers in Punaga Village, South Sulawesi. A qualitative approach was employed using participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. The findings indicate that trust, communal norms, and local social networks are central to seaweed farming practices. Social capital functions as a mechanism for information exchange, access to production inputs, and collective labor arrangements. However, the research also reveals that strong social capital fosters patron client relationships that reinforce the dominance of punggawa/pappalele in controlling capital and distribution channels. Closed social networks produce exclusivity and limit economic mobility for new farmers. These findings suggest that social capital is ambivalent: while it supports social cohesion, it also reproduces structural inequality. Strengthening local institutions and developing more inclusive social capital are essential to promoting independence and equity in aquaculture production systems.

References

Agusanty, Harnita. (2022). Sositeknologi Budidaya Rumput Laut. Yogyakarta. Penerbit: Depublish.

Alfiansyah, R. (2023). Modal Sosial sebagai Instrumen Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa. Jurnal Socius: Journal of Sociology Research and Education, 10(1), 41–51.

Andryani, A. K. (2018). Modal sosial pada masyarakat nelayan pa’bagang di Desa Bontosunggu Kabupaten Kepulauan Selayar. Universitas Negeri Makassar.

Arief, A. A., & Haeruddin, H. (2015). Pengaruh Modal Sosial Terhadap Kinerja Kelompok Usaha Perikanan Tangkap Di Kabupaten Sinjai (Studi Kasus Kelurahan Lappa, Kecamatan Sinjai Utara). Jurnal IPTEKS Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Perikanan, 2(4).

Arief, Andi Adri. (2021). Nelayan Pulau Kecil dan Kapitalisme. Yogyakarta: Depublish.

Arief, Andi Adri., Agusanty, Harnita., Marlini, Novianty., Mustafa, Dalvi., Nadir. (2024). Social Capital in the Patron-Client Dimension towards the Sustainability of Seaweed Cultivation Businesses in Rural Areas, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, v13n2

Aziz, Fatima., Risfaisal., Rosa, Irda. (2022). Modal Sosial Masyarakat Pesisir (Studi Kesejahteraan Sosial Petani Rumput Laut di Kabupaten Jeneponto. Aksiologi : Jurnal Pendidikan danIlmu Sosial. Volume: 3 No.1

Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. USA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bertolozzi-Caredio, D., Bardaji, I., Coopmans, I., Soriano, B., & Garrido, A. (2020). Key steps and dynamics of family farm succession in marginal extensive livestock farming. Journal of Rural Studies, 76, 131–141.Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Cofré-Bravo, G., Klerkx, L., & Engler, A. (2019). Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 69, 53–64.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Cook, K. S., Hardin, R., & Levi, M. (2005). Cooperation without trust? Russell Sage Foundation.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Konecki, K. T. (2018). Classic Grounded Theory—The Latest Version: Interpretation of Classic Grounded Theory as a Meta‐Theory for Research. Symbolic Interaction, 41(4), 547–564.

Maryudi, A., & Fisher, M. R. (2020). The power in the interview: A practical guide for identifying the critical role of actor interests in environment research. Forest and Society, 4(1), 142–150.

Popkin, S. L. (1979). The rational peasant: The political economy of rural society in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.

Sahlins, M. (1974). Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine.

Santoso, T. (2020). Memahami Modal Sosial. CV Saga Jawadwipa.

Scott, J. C. (1983). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Syofian, S., Sujianto, S., & Handoko, T. (2020). Modal sosial kelembagaan petani karet di Kabupaten Kuantan Singingi. Gulawentah: Jurnal Studi Sosial, 5(1), 52–59.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208.