MARITIMEPOSTS.COM – A simple conversation with a senior colleague—an alumnus of Hasanuddin University—this afternoon in a corner of Gowa Regency opened a long corridor of reflection on the economic history of the Sulawesi peninsula.
Let us call it a caccarita amid the vibrant atmosphere of PSBM gatherings—meetings of Bugis-Makassar merchants in the beloved city of Makassar.
He did not speak in academic jargon. Instead, he offered four key ideas that felt profoundly “scientific”: elements and relations, the historical traces of tobacco in Soppeng, silk in Sengkang, blacksmithing in Sidrap, and boat-building (perlopian) in Ara, Bulukumba.
Although he acknowledged the need for deeper historical verification and research references, his remarks guided the author toward a deeper inquiry.
From this, one can see that South Sulawesi has long been more than just a geographic space—it is an ecosystem of commodities that has lived, moved, and connected within vast trade networks.
This is no coincidence. It is a long-standing legacy of the Bugis-Makassar mercantile tradition, rooted since the pre-colonial era.
Historically, Bugis-Makassar people were known as traders and intermediaries across regions—connecting islands and even continents. Interestingly, the senior noted that they were not purely seafarers, but rather farmers, cultivators, and, “only” boat builders.
Historical artifacts confirm that Bugis-Makassar communities played a crucial role in a local form of mercantilism: transporting, exchanging, and distributing commodities across regions.
In this sense, being a merchant was not merely a profession—it was a way of life.
Commodity Reality: Strong Upstream, Weak Downstream
This brings us to a critical question: if strong commodity bases and trade networks have existed for so long, why has the transition toward industrialization remained sluggish?
South Sulawesi today remains rich in commodities: rice from Sidrap, Bone, Wajo, and Pinrang; seaweed from the coastal areas of Bantaeng, Jeneponto, Takalar, extending to Luwu Raya; along with cocoa and fisheries products.
Trade activities are dynamic—indeed, very vibrant.
Bugis-Makassar actors remain dominant in distribution, controlling logistics routes, markets, and interregional networks.
However, when it comes to downstream industrialization, the story changes.
Research on the seaweed industry provides a clear example. Several local factories have failed to grow or only operate at small-scale carrageenan production—around 1–2 tons per day.
Meanwhile, a large industrial facility in Pinrang can produce thousands of tons daily, yet it is owned by foreign investors.
This means that while local raw materials are processed, the greatest added value is captured externally.
A similar pattern appears in the rice sector. Local farmers and traders are active, but government-managed Rice Milling Units (RMUs) often operate inefficiently.
In contrast, the private sector performs more competitively. Once again, trade is strong—industrialization is not.
Mercantile Culture: Strength and Limitation
To understand this, we must consider the cultural dimension.
The Bugis-Makassar mercantile tradition is built on flexibility, mobility, and the ability to read opportunities quickly.
In this logic, becoming a trader or distributor is a rational choice: lower risk, faster capital turnover, and minimal infrastructure investment.
Industrialization, however, demands something different: long-term patience, significant investment, complex management, and technological capability. It is not merely about trading, but transforming raw materials into high-value products through structured processes.
Here lies a form of “cultural tension.”
The mercantile spirit that once served as a strength—the ability to trade across regions—can become a limitation when economic transformation requires production and innovation.
In other words, the issue is not a lack of economic capacity, but orientation: shifting from merely “moving goods” to “creating value.”
It is undeniable that many downstream industrial projects have failed or stalled. Evidence is not hard to find—one only needs to search for abandoned government-supported seaweed factories.
Techno-Cultural and Techno-Sociological Gaps
The author recalls the concept of techno-cultural dynamics—where Bugis-Makassar society has not fully integrated technology into its economic culture. Technology is still viewed as a supporting tool, not the core of production transformation.
From a techno-sociological perspective, the supporting ecosystem for industrialization is also underdeveloped. The persistence of patron-client systems (punggawa-sawi) in coastal areas and ijon practices in agrarian communities illustrates structural constraints.
Industrialization requires collaboration among entrepreneurs, government, academia, and skilled labor.
It is not an individual endeavor like trading—it is a systemic effort.
Yet, what role can universities and research institutions play?
So far, merchant gatherings appear to focus more on expanding trade—seeking new markets and distribution channels—rather than building integrated value chains from upstream to downstream.
Achieving this transformation demands deep cultural shifts and extraordinary commitment.
Learning from Bali: Cultural Transformation
Is it possible?
A comparison with Bali suggests that it is.
Historically dependent on agriculture, Bali underwent a significant transformation in the 1970s–1980s. Many people transitioned into artists—painters, sculptors, and craftsmen—supported by research, policy interventions, and local leadership.
Figures such as Tjokorda played a major role in promoting this transformation through capacity building and cultural campaigns involving community leaders, government, and traditional institutions.
This story is also echoed in accounts by Prof. Rhenald Kasali.
What is striking is that Bali did not abandon its cultural identity. Instead, it transformed it into new economic value.
Art, culture, and tourism became forms of “cultural downstreaming.”
Transformation, therefore, does not mean abandoning roots—it means developing them into more complex, high-value systems.
The Way Forward
The question is no longer “why not,” but “how.”
From this exchange, several strategic directions emerge:
- Shift orientation from trade to value-added production—complementing, not abandoning, trade.
- Encourage long-term investment, despite higher risks, to gain greater control over economic value.
- Build a techno-sociological ecosystem, fostering collaboration between business, government, academia, and investors.
- Redefine the merchant identity—not just as traders, but as producers, innovators, and technology owners.
Conclusion
The historical trajectory of commodities in Sulawesi has already laid a strong foundation.
Tobacco, silk, iron, and boat-building all testify that Bugis-Makassar society has long been capable of more than merely producing and intermediating.
One can imagine premium tobacco products from Soppeng, high-end silk fashion from Wajo, metal and nickel industries in Sidrap, or digitally enhanced boat-building industries in Bulukumba.
The challenge today is to move beyond mercantilism—not by abandoning it, but by transforming it within a global context that increasingly values local content, food security, and energy resilience.
From merchants who deliver value, to merchants who create value.
Has the foundation been laid?
This question matters—because the future of South Sulawesi depends on it.
Kamarufddin Azis
Tamarunang, Gowa
___
Note on Mercantilism
Mercantilism is an economic system that developed in Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries, where national wealth was measured by the accumulation of gold and silver.
Its core principles include promoting exports over imports, strong state control over trade, and the use of external regions as sources of raw materials and markets.
In the Bugis-Makassar context, this pattern is reflected in their historical role as traders, intermediaries, and distributors.
Activities such as shipping rice, trading seaweed, and connecting inter-island markets demonstrate a long-standing form of local mercantilism—focused not on processing or value creation, but on circulation and trade margins.