Dimas Sigit Pambudi

0820916

Sultan’s Realm Through Times: Unraveling Jogja’s Suburbia

Introduction
The name Yogyakarta in the context of administrative divisions and governance in Indonesia
can refer to two things. One is Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (Special Region of Yogyakarta),
a provincial-level – autonomous region located in the south-central part of Java Island. The
other refers to Kota Yogyakarta (City of Yogyakarta), the provincial capital of the former. In
both contexts, the name is sometimes mentioned as Yogya or Jogja, as in daily conversation.
This paper discusses the suburbanization phenomenon that occurs through time in the City of
Yogyakarta and Kartamantul, a metropolitan region consisting of three city-level districts within
the province, namely the City of Yogyakarta, Sleman, and Bantul Regency. Whenever
‘Yogyakarta’ is mentioned in this paper, it refers to the urban forms of the region (city and the
metropolitan region) unless otherwise specified. Using mainly the reading materials and class
discussion in session 11 of the class on suburbanization, this paper aims to answer the
following research questions:
1. How does the process of suburbanization in Yogyakarta come about?
2. How does the ‘Special Region’ status distinguish the suburbanization processes from
the rest of the world?
Yogyakarta as a Special Region
Historically, the Province of Yogyakarta is a continuation entity of the Sultanate of Yogyakarta
under which the former Sultanate of Mataram (1586 – 1749) being divided into two (the other
being Sunanate of Surakarta) under colonial pressure of VOC (Vereenigde Oost-Indische
Compagnie). After the independence of the Dutch East Indies (now: Indonesia), which
Sultanate of Yogyakarta located geographically within, Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX
acknowledging the Yogyakarta Sultanate as a component of the Indonesian Republic and
expressing his support for the newly established nation of Indonesia. Thus, the sultanate was
created as a province with special status.
(a) (b)

Picture 1. (a) The breakup of Sultanate of Mataram into Sultanate of Yogyakarta and Sunanate of Surakarta under
Giyanti Treaty (Source: Cribb, 2000, p.114); (b) Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Kartamantul Metropolitan
Region Includes: City/ Municipality of Yogyakarta, Sleman Regency and Bantul Regency (Source: Widiyanto, 2019).

Under this special autonomy, the sultan of Yogyakarta is appointed as a governor (as opposed
to an election in other provinces) and passed down in hereditary succession within the royal
house. Compared to other provinces, the other special status includes more freedom in
regional governance structure, land reform and agency, culture, and spatial planning (JDIH-
BPK, 2012). The last three components of this special autonomy are essential to understand
Yogyakarta's suburbanization processes. One is that the existence of Keraton Yogyakarta (re:
Sultan’s Palace or the current sultanate entity located in the city) has become an anchor of
strong Javanese culture, cultural heritage preservation, and mentality (Wardani, 2012), which
through time, is sometimes at odds with the globalizing world, where aspects of social living,
beliefs, and cosmology influence the physical space of planning. Secondly, the sultanate
possesses large, fragmented land (called Sultan’s Ground) in and around Yogyakarta, where
its usage is solely on the direction of the sultan. This Sultan Ground is generally unlikely to be
transferred to a private entity (JDIH-BPK 2017), hence preventing private development, which
in turns influence the landscape and processes of suburbanization.

First Phase: The Urban Becoming

The Kartamantul Region is an agglomeration or metropolitan region often cited as the core
urbanization region within the province. The City of Yogyakarta acts as the core city or urban
center, while Sleman and Bantul Regency cater to the urban sprawl in all directions from the
city. Administratively, the term city (Kota) and regency (Kabupaten) sit on the same level below
the provincial government, distinguished by their urban (city) and rural (regency) character.
The urban development of Yogyakarta post-1998 financial crisis runs parallel with the nation,
characterized by population and household income growth (BPS, 2022a). According to BPS
(2022b), the population growth and urbanization rate will continue soon.
On the dynamics of urban growth, Potter and Evans (1998) argue that economic activities are
recognized as the generator of urban spatial expansion through migration. During his study in
contemporary rural–urban linkages in Dhakka, Bangladesh, Afsar (1999) said that rural to
urban transformation is not a mere population concentration but a transformation of social and
economic characteristics. Urbanization in Asia is characterized by the development of areas
and activities, obfuscating the line between rural and urban life (Pradoto, 2012). Yogyakarta is
not an exception to the urbanization mentioned above, albeit without a massive
industrialization component. The city's urbanization, and later Kartamantul suburbanization,
has been strongly embedded through the region's touristification process. To say the least, the
region employs an entrepreneurial approach, as Harvey (1989) mentioned, the second
pathway of an entrepreneurial city. That is the creative, innovative, exciting, and safe place to
live, visit, play, and consume. Yogyakarta has been known by Indonesian, or Javanese, as
Kota Wisata (tourist city). Amid a rivalry with Surakarta, which both are the direct continuation
of the Sultanate of Mataram, Yogyakarta is considered superior as the center of Javanese
heritage (tangible and intangible). Ethnic Javanese, which constitutes 40.2% of 270 million
Indonesians, think of Yogyakarta as the mecca of the Javanese renaissance. Javanese often
refer to the Keraton Yogyakarta itself as the embodiment of Javanese essence. As a result,
Yogyakarta capitalizes on Javanese romanticism, the culture pure from globalization and
modernization influences, by transforming the region into a tourist and cultural heritage hub.
Non – Javanese, however, are still attracted to visit by the region's vast array of cultural,
historical, archeological, and natural landscapes.
Concurrent with touristification, the emergence of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
changes the façade of the urban core. The initial wave of touristification which coincided with
the early days of creative industries, sprung out a massive entrepreneurial economy selling
souvenirs made by local artisans. During this period, the hospitality industry also starts to
emerge as a formidable force of the changing urban structure of the region. Local's run hotel
coexists and competes with the growing number of national and international chain hotels. In
addition, chic and ethnic food and beverages establishments dotted the region. This tourism
industry invites many job seekers to flock to the city, hoping to get their portion of the economic
surpluses.
The tourism economy, however, is not the only contributor of the rapid urbanization of
Yogyakarta. Another element lies in the region's high number of higher education institutions.
Yogyakarta has the highest number of higher education institutions density per capita in
Indonesia. This has given Yogyakarta the moniker Jogja Kota Pelajar (Yogyakarta students'
city). Universitas Gadjah Mada, one of the oldest, largest, and consistently best universities in
Indonesia, is in the region. Another highly esteemed is the Indonesian Institute of the Arts -
Yogyakarta, which have a mutualistic symbiosis with the cultural revivalism of tourism in the
region. In total, at least 85 higher education institutions exist in the Kartamantul region, with
just around 2.5 million population. Hence, Yogyakarta is a magnet for student and academic
inward migrations, contributing to urbanization, which implies more than a mere population
number. There are many infrastructural demands to cope with such a vast number of higher
education economies.
While the urbanization of Yogyakarta is deeply embedded with the economy of tourism and
higher education, it is so much less about industrialization and manufacturing factories. This
contrasts with the common concept of urban expansion in the global south, particularly Asia,
where various economic activities mark development and land uses, including industrial estate
(McGee & Robinson, 1995). Yogyakarta's case also deviates from the Fordist model of the
global south economy, with which many Indonesian urban regions compete in the race to the
bottom to attract investment. Instead, the manufacturing industry is rapidly becoming the
backbone of Indonesia's economy. The Kawasan Industri (industrial estate) is a distinctive
landmark of Indonesia's urban areas (Winardi et al., 2019). Currently, only one industrial estate
exists in Kartamantul, although factories exist throughout Yogyakarta, albeit primarily detached
from the global logistic chain of manufactured goods. In this manner, Keil's (2018) argument
on Fordist-type industrialization, which critically characterizes the American suburbanization
processes, does not hold in Yogyakarta. Nevertheless, socioeconomic growth has created a
pattern of urban sprawl, as reported by Divigalpitiya and Handayani (2015).

Picture 2. Yogyakarta’s urban sprawl from 1972 – 2013 (Source: Divigalpitiya & Handayani, 2015)

Phase Two: Governing Suburbanization

While the creative economy, tourism, and higher education have successfully underlain the
urbanization of Yogyakarta, the continuum then rests on the coalition building among actors in
the urban sprawl on how to live and govern the suburb. Keil (2018) mentioned that the
expansion of land markets runs parallel with the city and its suburb growth. Following this, he
quoted Logan and Molotch (1987), who claimed that this growth is tied to the players and
processes pushing suburbanization. Post Suharto regime, which started in 1999, Indonesia
has undergone political and administrative reform into a highly decentralized system where
regional matters are devolved into regional governments (province and city/ regency level).
Firman (2009), argues that this decentralization, however, creates a peri-urban problem due
to a lack of coordination and harmonization between the suburb (regency) government and the
urban core (city) government.

Picture 3. Map of Province of Yogyakarta and Kartamantul (Source: Legates & Hudalah, 2014).

The expansion of suburban areas in Yogyakarta resulted in a vast infrastructure development

that converted the original farming and agricultural areas into housing, road, and public
facilities. The construction of the city's ring road in 1987 was an impetus for further
suburbanization (Divigalpitiya & Handayani, 2015). Road infrastructure development and real
estate housing project happened concurrently, branching out in all directions from the ring
road. Housing development needs mainly cater to students' accommodations, and owners
occupy housing. Over the last ten years, several higher education institutions have started to
occupy the outer urban core, which fastened the housing and infrastructure development of
the suburbs.
Apart from the temporary student population, net population growth creates various demands
for all forms of housing. The most common housing development caters to the growing middle-
class population, which is famously called Rumah type (house type) 21, 36, 45, 54, or 60,
referring to the size of the house. This new housing complex is mostly placed surrounding the
existing village creating separate urban patches, gradually merging with other patches that
finally merge with the central urban continuum. Reminiscent of the 'white flight' case by Keil
(2018), the proportion of gated communities also targets the city's more affluent demographics.
In this case, the urbanization processes in Yogyakarta capture the double pictures of home
ownership as a symbol of successful arrival and escape mechanism of the wealthier society
from problematic city life (Keil, 2018).
 Picture 4. Housing type from top left to right (type 21, 36, 45, 54 and 60) (Source: Rumah123.com)

Picture 5. Housing development (highlighted in orange) interspersed between villages, ricefield and agricultural
land in the south of the core urban area (Source: Google Maps)

Owing to its suburban growth, financial instruments and various legal and administrative
directives had to provide enough support to sustain the growth or the mere existence of
suburbanization itself. Housing financialization presented itself through conventional bank
products that cater to mortgages. Some of those cooperate with state-owned enterprises to
provide subsidies to home buyers or special mutual agreements of real estate financing to
make houses affordable. The word 'KPR' (kredit pemilikan rumah) means mortgages are
increasingly becoming a common topic among newly entered workforce's daily chat, implying
the importance of home ownership through housing financialization instruments. As the largest
Muslim country in the world, virtually all the big bank also offers Syariah KPR, meaning a
unique mortgage scheme marketed as adhering to the principle of Islam. Some new housing
clusters of the suburbs are even named with Islamic nuances, such as Muslim Sakinah
Regency and Permata Muslim Regency, which indirectly cement segregation. Additionally, in
contrast to the west where pension funds contribute considerably to house financialization and
mortgages (Aalbers, 2008), the pension fund has only contributed 0,04% of housing and real
estate financing in Indonesia (OJK, 2019). This is due to low financial literacy and a large
proportion of labor work in the informal sector, resulting in a low pension penetration rate,
which in turn made real estate investment from pension funds not feasible compared to other
options (OJK, 2019).
Finally, the governance elements deserve a highlight as the enabler of Yogyakarta's
suburbanization. Kartamantul is one of the many urban agglomerations in Indonesia. The most
famous one is Jabodetabek (Jakarta – Bogor – Depok – Tangerang – Bekasi) or Jakarta
metropolitan area, which is sometimes cited as the second most populous metropolis after
Tokyo (United Nations, 2018). Legates and Hudalah (2014), observed the problem of rural-
urban cooperation in Indonesia, which is the failure of clear sectoral co-direction that
addresses peri-urban issues between administrative jurisdictions. For example, Jabodetabek
has BKSP (Cooperation Development Agency), which consists of 5 administrative jurisdictions
(cities) spread across three provinces oriented to address the urban-suburban problems,
including public service planning and provisions. However, due to its functionality, it was
deemed powerless due to a lack of authority (Dharmaptani & Firman, 1995). Yogyakarta's
Kartamantul, however, is peculiar to the Indonesian case. Kartamantul created a joint
secretariat (Sekretariat Bersama Kartamantul) in 2000 to respond to the rapid expansion of
suburbanization (Sekretariat Bersama Kartamantul, 2001). This secretariat's scope is joined
planning and integrated provisioning of waste and wastewater management, clean water, road,
transportation, and drainage. All above are essential basic infrastructures of living required for
the proper housing development, hence necessities of suburban living.
Consequential from Kartamantul's joint secretariat, the suburbanization processes have
successfully prevented chaotic urban sprawl like the rest of Indonesian suburbs. A single
unitary suburbanization plan is desirable (Legates & Hudalah, 2014). This required a role of
unifying aspect, which can be achieved by political compromise and effective leadership that
unites differing parties.

At the Behest of Sultan: An Extraordinary Suburbanization Processes

The leadership of the Sultan of Yogyakarta, who functioned as a non-elected governor of the
province, played an essential part in the urban and suburbanization of Yogyakarta.
To date, the leadership of the Sultan still yielded overwhelming support from Yogyakarta. This
leadership was cemented in the 17th century since the creation of the Yogyakarta Sultanate.
Many of Yogyakarta's Javanese still hold true the ancient Javanese genealogy foretold the
guardianship of the island (or ethnic) of Java by Sultan and two immaterial personified-mystical
beings that each dwells in Mount Merapi and the Indonesian Sea. The history of the west is
indeed full of machines and inventions, while the history of the east is rife with ghosts and
spirits. Hence, even today, the Javanese mentality upholds and trusts Sultan's leadership.
Sultan and Yogyakartans life is guided by Javanese local wisdom of 'living in togetherness
(among human and with nature),' which underlies every aspect of the urbanization process,
development, and society's code of conduct.
Today, the scope of the Sultan's leadership parallels the role of the governor. Together with
the DPRD (Regional People's Representative Council), the two act as legislative and executive
elements of governance. He is accountable for overseeing governmental services in the
province in accordance with the policies decided upon in collaboration with the provincial
parliament (JDIH-BPK, 2004). Hence, the democratically elected provincial parliament,
partnered with the somehow 'divine' guardianship role of the Sultan, has created a good recipe
for governance. As a result, Yogyakarta has the second-highest human development index
among provinces in Indonesia, behind the capital city, Jakarta (BPS, 2022b). Moreover, it stays
outside the top 10 of corruption by government officials (Angelilna, 2022). This is an
exceptional achievement noting that corruption among government officials is a chronic
problem in procuring public services in Indonesia (KPK, 2014).
Considering suburbanization processes, Sultan's leadership has carefully exercised his divine
guardianship mandate over the people of Yogyakarta, in collaboration with the Kartamantul's
governments, through sound and careful planning of provisioning of public services. After all,
his full royal name in Javanese, "Hamengkubuwono "means Hamangku: pleased to serve the
people and protect the people justly; Hamengkoni: ready to take responsibility of a leader;
Buwono: the Javanese universe. Wardani (2012), on her list of the Sultanate's positive
contribution, included socio-economic development as one of his most outstanding
achievements. This contrasts with Erdogan's nepotistic mayorship and his AKP political
instruments during his tenure in Istanbul, that resulted in problematic suburbanization
processes (Ucoglu, 2019; Ucoglu, 2021). This is not at all to say that the suburbanization
process in Yogyakarta is not problematic. However, it is evident that the process enjoys
comparative success compared to the other suburbanization in Indonesia and other global
south countries.

Conclusions
The process of suburbanization in Yogyakarta is embedded through the economy of tourism,
cultural heritage, and higher education. With a distinction of the absence of mass industry and
disconnection from the global chain of manufactured goods, this suburbanization lacks a
component of Fordist-type of suburbanization which characterizes the rest of Indonesian
suburbs and the global south in general. Instead, a compelling ‘divine’ leadership, in the form
of a Sultanate, far away from western imaginaries, emerges as an anchor of effective
suburbanization governance through the creation of a join secretariat for bare provisioning of
infrastructures and public services. It distinguishes the governance of urbanization processes
from democratic countries, as well as from authoritarian Sultan or King imageries as an
oppressor of their people in developed and developing countries. Perhaps, the takeaway from
this paper is two-fold: first, the global south countries can learn from the implementation of
multi and joint governance of sub (peri) urban areas; second, the west should stop looking
down upon those who refuse western-style democracy as a just king is better than corrupt
democracy. The case of Yogyakarta is the perseverance of indigeneity and local wisdom
against the capitalistic globalized world.
 References
Aalbers, M. (2008). The Financialization of Home and the Mortgage Market Crisis. Competition
& Change, 12 (2), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1179/102452908X289802

Afsar, R. (1999). Rural-urban dichotomy and convergence: emerging realities in Bangladesh.

Environment and Urbanization, 11, 235-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789901100106

Angelina, D. (2022, December 31). Menilik Statistik Korupsi di Indonesia.

https://goodstats.id/article/menilik-statistik-korupsi-di-indonesia-IWZN8

BPS. (2022a). Statistik Konsumsi dan Pengeluaran. Retrieved on 2022 December 31 from
https://www.bps.go.id/subject/5/konsumsi-dan-pengeluaran.html#subjekViewTab3

BPS. (2022 b). Proyeksi Jumlah Penduduk menurut Kabupaten/Kota di D.I. Yogyakarta
(Jiwa), 2023-2025. Retrieved on 2022 December 31 from
https://yogyakarta.bps.go.id/indicator/12/133/1/proyeksi-jumlah-penduduk-menurut-
kabupaten-kota-di-d-i-yogyakarta-.html

BPS. (2022c). [Metode Baru] Indeks Pembangunan Manusia menurut Provinsi 2020-2022.
Retrieved on 2022 December 2022 from https://www.bps.go.id/indicator/26/494/1/-metode-
baru-indeks-pembangunan-manusia-menurut-provinsi.html

Cribb, R. (2000). Historical Atlas of Indonesia. Curzon Press.

Dharmaptani, I., & Firman, T. (1995). Problems and challenges of mega-urban regions in
Indonesia: the case of Jabotabek and Bandung metropolitan area, regions. In McGee, T.
G., & Robinson, I.M. (Eds).The Mega-Urban Regions of Southeast Asia (pp. 213–241)
University of British Columbia Press

Divigalpitiya, P. & Handayani, K.N. (2015). Measuring the Urban Expansion Process of
Yogyakarta City in Indonesia: Urban expansion process and spatial and temporal
characteristics of growing cities. International review for spatial planning and sustainable
development, 3 (4),18-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.3.4_18

Firman, T. (2009). Decentralization reform and local-government proliferation in Indonesia:

Towards a fragmentation of regional development. Review of Urban and Regional
Development Studies, 21, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-940X.2010.00165.x

Harvey, D (1989). From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban

Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71 (1),
3-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583

JDIH-BPK. (2004). Undang-undang (UU) No. 32 Tahun 2004: Pemerintahan Daerah.

Retrieved on 2022 December 31 from https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/40768/uu-
no-32-tahun-2004

JDIH-BPK. (2012). Undang Undang (UU) No. 13 Tahun 2012: Keistimewaan Daerah Istimewa
Yogyakarta. Retrieved on 2022 December 30 from
https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/39064

JDIH-BPK. (2017). Peraturan Daerah Istimewa Nomor 1 Tahun 2017: Pengelolaan dan
Pemanfaatan Tanah Kasultanan dan Tanah Kadipaten. Retrieved on 2022 December 30
from https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/14570
Keil, R. (2018). Suburban Planet: Making the World Urban from the Outside in. Polity Press.

KPK. (2014). Anti-Corruption Clearing House-ACCH-KPK. Retrieved on 2022 December 31

from http://acch.kpk.go.id/statistik

Legates, R. & Hudalah, D. (2014). Peri-Urban Planning for Developing East Asia: Learning
from Chengdu, China and Yogyakarta/ Kartamantul, Indonesia. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36
(1), 334-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12106

Logan, J.R., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. University
of California Press.

McGee, T. & Robinson, I. (1995). The mega-urban region of Southeast Asia. University of
British Columbia Press.

OJK. (2019). Program Pensiun Seri Literasi Keuangan Perguruan Tinggi. In Otoritas Jasa
Keuangan (Buku 6). Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Jakarta

Potter, R.B. & Evans, L.S. (1998). The city in the developing world. Addison Wesley Longman
Limited.

Pradoto, W. (2012). Development patterns and socioeconomic transformation in peri-urban

area Case of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. [PhD Thesis, TU Berlin]. TU Berlin Online Repository.
Retrieved from https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/bitstream/11303/3573/1/Dokument_44.pdf.

Sekretariat Bersama Kartamantul. (2001). Keputusan bersama Bupati Bantul, Bupati Sleman
dan Walikota Yogyakarta No. 04/Perj/RT/2001, 38/Kep.KPH/2001, 03 tahun 2001 tentang
pembentukan Sekretariat Bersama Pengelolaan Prasarana dan Sarana perkotaan antara
Kabupaten bantul, Kabupaten Sleman dan Kota Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta, Indonesia:
Pemerintah Kabupaten Bantul, Kabupaten Sleman, dan Kota Yogyakarta.

Üçoğlu, M. (2019). “Massive Housing and Nature’s Limits? The Urban Political Ecology of
Istanbul’s Periphery”, in Güney, K. M., Keil, R. & Üçoğlu, M. Massive Suburbanization: (Re)
building the Global Periphery, (pp. 201-219). University of Toronto Press.

Üçoğlu, M. (2021). Financialization and suburbanization: the predatory hegemony of

suburban-financial nexus in Istanbul. Globalizations, 18 (6), 981-994.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1859763

United Nations. (2018). World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights. United Nations. New
York.

Wardani, L.K. (2012). Pengaruh Pandangan Sosio-Kultural Sultan Hamengkubuwana IX

terhadap Eksistensi Keraton Yogyakarta. Jurnal Masyarakat dan Kebudayaan Politik, 25
(1), 56-63. http://repository.petra.ac.id/16087/

Widiyanto, D. (2019). Local Food Potentials and Agroecology in Yogyakarta Special Province,
Indonesia. Forum Geografi, 33 (1). https://doi.org/10.23917/forgeo.v33i1.7795

Winardi., D.S. Priyarsono., Siregar, H., & Kustanto, H. 2019. Peranan Kawasan Industri dalam
Mengatasi Gejala Deindustrialisasi. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Pembangunan Manusia. 19 (1),
84-95. https://doi.org/10.21002/jepi.v19i1.834