Surabaya City Economic Development Analysis within Lefebvre’s Urbanisation Framework

Surabaya, the capital of East Java, has been a “global” trading center since its earliest record found in Majapahit’s former capital, Trowulan (Dzikri 2023). With a population of 3 million, Surabaya is the second largest metropolitan city in Indonesia, producing USD 7,526 GDP per capita (Badan Pusat Statistik 2023). This essay aims to investigate Surabaya’s deeply intertwined economic, social, political, and spatial growth throughout history within Lefebvre’s historical framework (Figure 1; Lefebvre and Bononno 2003, 1-13). To explain my argument in detail, I will divide Surabaya’s historical timeline into three periods, each demonstrating significant economic and spatial transformation. First, Surabaya as a semi-political and mercantile city from the Hindu-Buddhist kingdom era to Dutch colonial period for 350 years. Second, Surabaya as an industrialized and agricultural city under military dictatorship. Third, Surabaya as an urbanized society from the 80s to present. While Surabaya’s phase as a semi-political, mercantile, and industrial city supposedly follows Lefebvre’s framework, the characteristics of each development challenges Lefebvre’s theory due to Surabaya’s geographical, historical, economic, and political specificity. Nonetheless, Lefebvre’s historical framework is useful in laying out Surabaya’s historical periods whilst scrutinizing its development through the lens of Molotch (1976)’s The Growth Machine and Smith (1990)’s Uneven Development.

Figure 1. Lefebvre’s Historical Framework

Although historical materials on Surabaya’s origins are scarce, most attest to Surabaya’s emergence as a trading port–demonstrating its origins as a mercantile city (Pamungkas et al. 2019). With the harbor built on the Kalimas River mouth, Surabaya became a trading center and port entry for the Majapahit Kingdom. While Majapahit placed its capital in Trowulan, Surabaya serves as the economic hub in which vital trading activities between Majapahit and neighboring countries such as China and Arab take place. Simultaneously, with the presence of Kertanegara’s cavalrymen (Faber 1931), Surabaya also possessed the traits of a political city where “priests, warriors, princes, ‘nobles’, and military leaders were present” (Lefebvre and Bononno 2003). Nonetheless, no large-scale agricultural projects were identified, and unlike Trowulan, there are no remnants of holy temples discovered. Furthermore, instead of marginalizing merchants from the political city, since the 14th century, Chinese traders have settled in Surabaya, even becoming part of the Majapahit kingdom and contributed to the robust trade in the city (Putri 2020). In this sense, Surabaya’s origins is arguably a mercantile city instead of a political city due to its strategic geographical location and unique political and economic atmosphere, which subverts Lefebvre’s theory.

Since it fell under the control of the Dutch colony in the 16th century, Surabaya has been developed as the center of distribution and trading activities of Java’s plantation products. It is during the colonial era that Surabaya experienced capital concentration and growth, though at the expense of Indonesian (pribumi)’s exploitation. The Dutch colonial government started developing settlements and offices in Surabaya, marking its full authority over the city. Sugar plantation became the main source for international trading, and with the rapid growth and mobilization of plantation workers, Daendels instructed the construction of The Great Post Road connecting the West Coast (Anyer) and East Coast (Panarukan), further accelerating the trade cycle. The outskirts of Surabaya then served as agricultural projects, while the city became the capital of the Dutch colonial government who ruled over the plantations. In the 18th century, as a result of rapid agricultural growth, an industrial revolution started–marked by the emergence of steam power. “Locomobile”, in replacement of animal power, became the transportation means to ship sugar production from the plantations to the port (Samidi 2017). These spatial interventions (e.g. infrastructure construction, labor localization) were profoundly influenced by the colonial government as the “growth elite” (Molotch 1976), aiming for centralization of capital in the city. But contrary to Lefebvre’s argument, the industry did not have to move to a new city in search for raw materials and low wage labor thanks to the infrastructures (e.g. railroad & road) facilitating laborers’ and plantation products’ mobility from the rural area. The mercantile city naturally developed into an industrial city catering to the Dutch colonial capital interests; thus, there is no excuse for the mercantile city to “defend” itself from the “industrial capital” (Lefebvre and Bononno 2003, 13).

The development of Surabaya as an industrial city culminated with the introduction of the railway and Agrarian act (agrarische wet), which also marked the golden age of private plantation enterprises. The colonial government galvanized economic expansion by drawing more workers into the city, locating and exploiting raw materials, and developing the means of transportation that provide cheaper and faster access to raw materials and markets (Smith 1982, 143). To accommodate the intense global exchange and trade, Tanjung Perak harbor was constructed in 1910–replacing the Kali Mas river. To this day, the Tanjung Perak harbor is frequented by ships facilitating import-export activities. The new economic “function” of the city was then translated to the architecture of the city, as presented on Figure 2 and 3. Surabaya’s city development is focused along the north-south axis as plantation from the hinterland in the south is transported by steam-powered train to Tanjung Perak harbor in the north. Surabaya’s industrialization attracted more laborers from other cities, spurring population growth up to 336,817 people in the 1930s, leading to housing problems. In response to this crisis, The First National Housing Congress was held by the Dutch colonial government, addressing the problems of housing including sanitation, hygiene, and measures to prevent spread of contagious disease (Setiyawan 2018). In sum, Surabaya’s development pattern in Dutch colonial era clearly reflects the “spatial practices” through which mobilization infrastructures are intensified to facilitate the process of capitalist industrialization (Neil and Christian 2015, 170), which led to urban problems (e.g. economic disparity; housing).

Figure 2. Surabaya map 1940

Figure 3. Surabaya map pre-independence (1945)

In the 1960s, with Soeharto appointed as the president, the “New Order” pursued agricultural and industrial development under the “five year development plan (PELITA)”. Interestingly, this phase shows “economic duality”–that of agricultural and industrial–instead of submerging each other, in contrast to Lefebvre’s framework. Human resources and production units in various industries (e.g. cigarette, chemical, rubber and plastic, steel, wood, printing) rapidly increased, with 551 units and 72,131 staff recorded as per July 1976 (Arief et al. 1999). Industrial area Ngagel and Surabaya Industrial Estate Rungkut were developed, attracting a tremendous number of labor to the city. In addition, Surabaya became part of the strategic region "GERBANGKERTOSUSILA" (Gresik, Bangkalan, Mojokerto, Surabaya, Sidoarjo, Lamongan) following the regional planning program aimed to divide East Java into various industrial regions (Hartono and Handinoto 2007). Again, the revitalization of industrial areas transformed the structure of Surabaya, which expanded to the suburbs from the east to the west instead of consolidating its center along the Kalimas river. On the other hand, rapid urbanization exacerbated the living conditions of kampungs. In response to this crisis, the Kampung Improvement Program was introduced with various goals, funded by the World Bank (World Bank 1995). Meanwhile, in the same time-frame, massive real estate developments by private sectors started. Real Estate Indonesia, a private developer company, was established and worked with the National Urban Development Corporation in developing affordable housing. The implementation of Kampung Improvement Program for the lower middle class and real estate development for the upper middle class show that urbanization inevitably brings class and economic disparity, which Molotch (1976) argues as the consequences of city growth (25-26). As urbanization attracts people from various classes to work in the city, urban problems inevitably occur.

In the 80s, Surabaya had fully transformed into a neoliberal urban society. Real estate business went through a rapid growth, contributing to the state economy post-oil crisis in the 1980s. The development of CitraLand satellite city in West and East Surabaya due to the high demand for high quality residence from upper-middle class is the most prominent case of Surabaya’s growth. In the early 90s, real estate developers sought to transform open space (see Figure 4) to a luxurious housing area, furnished with facilities such as international school, golf field, and even a culinary tourism site. The construction of CitraLand was born from the agreement between the city government and real estate developers, provided that they pay more tax to the city government and attract more investors to the city (Aminah et al. 2018). Satellite city development plan was welcomed by investors, transforming a previously abandoned area due to poor access and infrastructure to an exclusive luxurious housing. The partnership between CitraLand and the Surabaya government is a testament to “the growth coalition”, which is the elite groups controlling urban growth and capital gains (Molotch 1976). PT. Ciputra Surya Tbk as the developer dubbed CitraLand as the “Singapore of Surabaya”, suggesting a green, comfortable, and high class residential area–luring investors and upper-middle class workers to inhabit the complex. Ironically, the development of this green satellite city jeopardizes the environment of Sepat reservoir, drawing backlash from the residents (Aminah et al. 2018, 30). This case exemplifies how “growth” that serves the capitalistic interest of the coalition (e.g. municipal government and businessmen) is inextricably linked with uneven development.

Figure 4. Surabaya’s land use map 2001 and 2015

Furthermore, as growth never truly aligns with “collective good”, socio-economic inequality and urban ecology problems arise. First, urban poverty increases as the developers deprived the livelihood of fishery and plantation farmers by transforming open space into housing complexes. Moreover, while CitraLand’s settlers are mostly elites and entrepreneurs, those who live outside CitraLand are mostly laborers, employees, and small traders with no access to elite facilities. Even though the Surabayan government released the land provided that Citra group develops a green satellite city, it cannot be denied that the development’s “trade-offs” is the socio-economic disparity between those living inside and outside CitraLand. To the pro-growth, Citra group successfully contributed to the city’s growth by transforming a dormant open space into a lively commercial and residential complex populated by entrepreneurs, while paying high taxes to the Surabayan government. Conversely, to the farmers and natives “evicted” from their land, for whom city “growth” is intended is ironically contentious. This phenomenon is a living example of differentiation where “capital is concentrated and centralized in some places at the expense of others (Smith 1990, 12).” Second, the ecotourism development in East Surabaya is under public scrutiny due to illegal mangrove logging, depriving the livelihoods of settlers around the mangrove conservation. Amid the growth centralisation in West and East Surabaya, poor and traditional urban neighborhoods (i.e. kampung) still exist across the city. The Kampung Improvement Project that has been conducted since the Dutch colonial era has not shown growth as immense as the real estate development in East and West Surabaya. This issue proves that capitalistic interest of both governments and entrepreneurs as the growth coalition has always been at the cost of the stagnant or even degradation of the livelihood of the lower income class, highlighting urban uneven development.

In conclusion, although showing slight parallel, Surabaya’s path to urbanization is not strictly tied to Lefebvre’s historical framework and rather demonstrates an overlapping characteristic of each “city”. The history of Surabaya shows growth from a semi-political/mercantile city (Hindu-Buddha kingdom), agricultural/mercantile/industrialized city (Dutch colonial era), agricultural/industrialized city (New Order era), and urbanized city (1980s-present). Due to its geographical location, Surabaya’s “zero base” is arguably a mercantile city instead of a political city because although warriors, priests, and nobles of the Majapahit Kingdom were present, its main economic focus was trading instead of agricultural projects. However, under the Dutch colonial government, agricultural production became the main focus and was then industrialized, accelerating economic growth and attracting labor and foreign merchants to immerse in the robust economic activity in the city. During Soeharto’s reign, agricultural and industrial growth were maximized considering the abundant natural and human resources of East Java. In this sense, Surabaya does not depend on one type of capital, but maximizes profits from various sources, which influences the economic activity and spatial transformation of the city. Furthermore, from the Dutch colonial era to present day, Surabaya’s industrialization and urbanization is characterized by urban problems such as environmental and socio-economic problems. This crisis can be attributed to the “growth machine” (e.g. Dutch government & European businessmen; Surabaya municipal government & local businessmen), which segregates class interests and exacerbates uneven urban development. In sum, Surabaya’s development towards urbanization is driven by the “growth coalition” at the cost of uneven development, and its timeline partially fits Lefebvre’s theory due to its geographical, economic, and historical characteristics.

Bibliography

Aminah, Siti, Susanti A. Hesti, and Soekartun Roikan. “Social Ecology and the Growth Machine Coalition in the Surabaya Policy Dilemma.” Journal of Architectural Research and Design Studies 1, no. 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.20885/jars.vol1.iss2.art7

Arief, Suwondo, Bambang Soedharsono, and Sumarno. Pembangunan lima tahun di Propinsi Jawa Timur 1969-1988 [Five-year development in East Java 1969-1988]. Jakarta: Proyek Inventarisasi dan Dokumentasi Sejarah Nasional, 1999.

Badan Pusat Statistik. Kota Surabaya dalam Angka 2023 [Surabaya city in Numbers 2023]. Surabaya: Badan Pusat Statistik, 2023.

Dzikri, Abi Mu’ammar. “Sejarah Kota Surabaya sejak Era Majapahit hingga Indonesia 1945 [Surabaya History from Majapahit Kingdom Era to Indonesia 1945].” tirto.id. November 6, 2023. https://tirto.id/sejarah-kota-surabaya-sejak-era-majapahit hingga-indonesia-1945-gytS

Faber, G.H. von. Oud Soerabaia: De Geschiedenis Van Indië's Eerste Koopstad Van De Oudste Tijden Tot De Instelling Van De Gemeenteraad. Surabaya: Gemeente Soerabaia, 1931.

Hartono, Samuel and Handinoto. “Surabaya Kota Pelabuhan [Surabaya Port City].” Dimensi: Journal of Architecture and Built Environment 35, no.1 (2007): 88–99.

Lefebvre, Henry, and Robert Bononno. The Urban Revolution. University of Minnesota Press, 2003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt5vkbkv

Molotch, Harvey. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 2 (1976): 309–320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777096.

Pamungkas, A., D. Iranata, Jennie Yuwono, and Lalu Jaelani. “An insight on Surabaya development: pre colonials, colonial, post colonial and current era.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 340, no. 1 (2019).

Putri, Risa Herdahita. “Masyarakat Tionghoa di Majapahit.” historia.id. January 25, 2020. https://historia.id/kuno/articles/masyarakat-tionghoa-di-majapahit-vqm9B/page/4

Samidi. “Surabaya sebagai Kota Kolonial Modern pada Akhir Abad ke-19: Industri, Transportasi, Permukiman, dan Kemajemukan Masyarakat [Surabaya as Colonial Modern City in late 19th Century: Industry, Transportation, Settlement, and Diversity].” Mozaik Humaniora 17, no. 1 (2017): 157-180.

Setiyawan, Idam. “Policy of Kampong Improvement and Public Housing: Surabaya Colonial Period (1900—1940).” Lembaran Sejarah 13, no. 150. (2018). 10.22146/lembaran-sejarah.33540.

Smith, Neil. “Gentrification and Uneven Development.” Economic Geography 58, no. 2 (1982): 139–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/143793.

Smith, Neil. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. University of Georgia Press, 1990. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nmvk.

World Bank Group. Indonesia- Enhancing the quality of life in urban Indonesia: the legacy of Kampung Improvement Program (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group, 1995. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/927561468752367336/Indonesia-Enhancing the-quality-of-life-in-urban-Indonesia-the-legacy-of-Kampung-Improvement-Program