Center for Sustainable Resources, University of California at Berkeley, USA
Rural Economic Development Consultant, Indonesia
It is generally accepted that massive tourism and a vibrant indigenous culture are mutually exclusive. Bali has so far proven to be an exception to this rule. This article explores a hitherto overlooked socio-economic mechanism behind that exception. It is a dual complementary currency system used for centuries by highly decentralized and democratic decision-making organizations. The reasons why such a dual currency system is so effective in mobilizing popular cultural creativity is investigated, and its potential applications in areas in the world other than Bali are described.
The process is well known, and has been observed all around the world: massive tourism and an authentic and living indigenous culture simply cannot coexist. Increasing numbers of tourists tend to ultimately destroy the exotic culture they came to experience in the first place, as the locals begin increasingly display their culture only for tourist money. Many major tourist destinations have gone through this process: Italy and Greece during the 19th century when it became part of any gentlemen’s education to make “the tour” of the classical European civilizations (and from where the word “tourism” derives). Mexico, the Caribbean, Hawaii, Tahiti, Fiji and other Pacific Islands are well-known examples of the same process during the 20th century. Since the late 1970s, many studies have reported a systematic conflict between two desirable aims: cultural integrity and economic development through tourism. Most development plans even highlight the need for a formal trade-off in tourism between socio-cultural costs and economic benefits. This built-in conflict can been summarized succinctly as “Tourism and paradise…are incompatible. For as fast as paradises seduce tourists, tourists reduce paradises…Hardly has the last paradise been discovered than everyone converges on it so fast that it quickly becomes a paradise lost.”
Nevertheless, Bali seems to be an exception to this rule, where increasing numbers of tourists have not led to a corresponding destruction of Balinese culture. This article will describe one key but generally overlooked tool that is systematically used in Bali to achieve that difference.
It is organized in seven sections as follows:
- The Bali Exception
- Some Insufficient Reasons proposed for this Exception
- The Banjar as a key organization structure
- A double currency (national currency and time currency) as the key implementation tool.
- How the dual currency system supports cultural sustainability
- Applicability in Other Areas than Bali
Almost everybody has heard of Bali as the “Last Paradise”, a reputation dating back to the time when Westerners first discovered it at the end of the 16th century. In counterpoint, every generation during the 20th century has announced the imminent demise of the Balinese’ exceptionally rich traditional cultural heritage.
The first figures published by the Bali Tourist Bureau reported 213 visitors during the year 1924, when the local population was estimated around one million. When in the 1930s the number of visitors reached for the first time thousand per year, travel brochures entitled “Bali: the Enchanted Isle” suggested to visit Bali soon because “in another ten years, it may be spoiled by that insidious modernism.” In the 1950s, after the Indonesian independence, the warnings would become more pressing: “This anachronistic relic of the Hindu soul is, after ten centuries, about to lose its exceptional traits. Let us hurry while there is still time, and contemplate it closely before it gives in to the contagion of modern Indonesia.” In 1971 the first “Bali Tourism Development Plan” coolly predicted that by the time its project would be completed in 1985 “the cultural manifestations will probably have disappeared, but Bali can still retain its romantic image as a green and sumptuous garden.” When in 1994, tourism traffic increased to over 2 million for the first time, the forewarning was repeated: “How much more tourism can the island take? …It is now clear that the unbelievably complex social and religious fabric of the Balinese is at last breaking down under the tourist onslaught.” Today well over 4 million tourists visit that small island of 3 million inhabitants, and are still overwhelmed by the vibrant pageantry of the thousands of religious festivals and other cultural events organized every year by the Balinese for the entertainment of the Balinese gods and themselves. Indeed, it still is true today that “at their temple feasts they combine two good purposes, namely to please their gods and amuse themselves. I would even say that these two things are identical with the Balinese.” This is unlike other tourist destination sites - Hawaii, Tahiti or Fiji - where the indigenous culture has died out to the point where traditional dances for instance, are now organized exclusively for tourists. In contrast, out of the 5,000 dance groups listed with the provincial authorities as performing in Bali, less than 200 are maintained for tourist performances, and the other 4,800 for temple time.
It should be made clear from the outset that we are aware that:
- Bali or its culture has changed under the pressures of modernization and tourism;
- And that these millions of tourists have had negative effects on the environmental, social or cultural fabric in Bali.
Several good publications are available that are making an inventory of such damaging impacts.
But what we and many other observers claim is that “tourism has not destroyed Balinese culture” as it did in so many other places. Bali has been able to maintain a specifically Balinese social, cultural and religious environment against all odds; better than other major tourist destinations. In 1936, Margaret Mead in her first letter from Bali noted that “Bali seems to have learned through a couple of thousand years of foreign influences just how to use and how to ignore those influences. Accustomed to an alien aristocracy, accustomed to successive waves of Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on, they let what is alien flow over their heads.” Fifty years later, this point is still valid: “Beset by invaders for millenniums, the Balinese are responding to the latest incursions as they have to past incursions, by becoming more like themselves. The fabric of Balinese society is too strong and too flexible to be rent by easy money.” Another informed observer concluded that the difference is that in Bali: “The newly available consumer goods have not dethroned ceremonial expenses as a source of prestige and sign of status: the money earned from tourism feeds a competition for status that is expressed in the staging of ever more sumptuous and spectacular ceremonies – much to the delight of the tourists.”
This article will explore through what mechanism Bali has been able to achieve that result.
Some claim that that the Balinese exception is simply due to the fact that Balinese are somehow inherently and mysteriously different. “Bali will always be Bali. In the past, a hundred years ago, today, and even a hundred years from now…Tourism is for Bali, not Bali for tourism.”
Others see the religion (mainly Hinduism), the complex caste system, or racial characteristics as the explanation of that difference. Others still claim that the management of the complex irrigation systems for the rice agriculture imposes strong cooperation among all its users, thereby creating a strong social fabric at the local level.
Without denying that all these reasons can and do indeed play a role in the Bali exception, we feel that by themselves, none of them are really convincing because none of them - or even their combination - are really unique to Bali. After all, there are hundreds of millions of Hindus around the world where a similar caste system prevails; and they have not exhibited the same level of cultural resilience and creativity as the Balinese. Similarly, Bali shares with other parts of Asia a complex racial composition resulting over several millennia from successive invasions of Austronesian, Indic, Malay, Javanese and other ethnicities; as well as its irrigation and rice agriculture. Even the historical familiarity with foreign or colonial rulers, first noted by Mead, is clearly not unique to Bali.
So, is there a systemic explanation for the Bali exception?
To find out, the authors made during the Summer of 2002 a series of interviews - conducted mostly in Bahasa Indonesia - with local traditional Balinese leaders. The geographical focus was on the area of and around Ubud, generally considered as the “cultural capital” of Bali, because the interface between the indigenous culture and tourism is particularly intense in that region.
On the basis of this research, we propose that the key towards Bali’s exceptional cultural resilience results from a combination of two key traditional tools generally used all over Bali: the first consists of specific local organization structures, and the second of a dual currency system systematically used by those organization structures. The organization structures are well-known from the anthropological literature: the Banjar social organization, and a less formal structure called the Sekhe (pronounced say-keuh). But the key role of the dual currency system used by both those structures has tended to be overlooked until now. Both will be explained next.
The Banjar is the fundamental civil unit in Bali, operating in a decentralized, democratic, cooperative manner at the local level. Banjars are typically geographically bounded on one side by a major road, on two sides by secondary roads and on the end by a river, which irrigates the Banjar’s rice fields and forest which supplies food and raw materials for the many ceremonies held each year. In a small village, there is often only one Banjar; in larger towns, there may be several. In Ubud for instance, there are four Banjars in the town itself, and 9 additional ones in the immediately surrounding villages.
The Banjar structure having been amply described in the anthropological literature, we can be brief here. It has been succinctly defined a “residential entity whose responsibilities are at once legal, fiscal and ritual.” This paper will focus particularly on its socio-economic and cultural functions.
The Banjar head, the Klian Banjar, is elected by a majority vote of the members, and “is more an agent than a ruler”. He can also be dismissed at a members’ meeting by majority vote. He receives no remuneration for this function. Each member is equal and has one vote, there is no special status granted to wealthier members of the Banjar. Each thirty-five-day Balinese month on the average, the Kulkul bell (a wooden gong) summons the council members to the dedicated meeting place, the Bale Banjar, to decide on the next month’s activities. Special meetings can also be convened whenever necessary.
At such meetings, both new activities are proposed and on-going projects are reported on. At the same time, the contributions of time and money are decided upon for each project. However, if a majority of members becomes opposed to a particular project for whatever reason, it is revisited at the next monthly meeting to discuss whether or not to continue with it.
In the Ubud area each Banjar has between 750 and 1200 members, who are represented at the council by the 150 to 260 male heads of each household. The four Banjar of Ubud itself have recently agreed on a single written rule book, Awig-awig, which defines the operation of the Banjar. But notwithstanding this common rule book, each Banjar tends to keep its own style and focus depending on its leadership and the socio-economic background of its members.
In the less formal structures of the Balinese countryside, the main Banjar rules are part of the adat, the traditional code of conduct. And although the overall system is very similar all over Bali, lots of small local variations in rules can be observed.
The Sekhe (literally: “to make one”) is less formal and less permanent than the Banjar. It could be defined as a “Balinese activity club”. For example, most traditional orchestras (gamelan) or dance groups take that form. Some are formally created by a Banjar council and involve members of only that specific Banjar; many result from individual initiative and include members from various neighboring Banjars. A few evolve into successful for-profit cooperative ventures (like the 200 dance groups that perform for tourists). Many in the Ubud area focus on the development of the arts (like the Sekhe initiative by a young member of the Banjar Tengah involving now 57 members from 4 different Banjars to resurrect in Ubud the almost lost tradition of bamboo gamelan). The objective of most is to have a lot of fun (like the ones created to build huge kites in the windy season, sometimes running in the yearly kite competitions). All Sekhe stand or fail on their own merits and leadership, and on their capacity to attract the enthusiasm of other participants.
What Sekhe has in common with Banjar is that they are both part of the traditional social system (‘adat’), and are widely used all over Bali: there are more than 3,000 Banjars operational in Bali, and an unrecorded multiple of that number in Sekhe. But most importantly, both use the dual currency system described next.
In our meetings with the local Balinese leaders, we were repeatedly told that it is not something special about the Balinese or Hindu religion itself, but the strong system of mutual cooperation, the Banjar, that has maintained Balinese culture despite the large and increasing numbers of tourists coming to the area.
- “Banjar is stronger than religion in keeping community and culture together.” Pak Agung Putra, Klian Banjar Tengah.
-“Banjar is what holds the community, each other, together.” Pak Ketut Suartana, Klian Banjar Sambahan.
- Banjar is the most fundamental organization that keeps the Balinese character intact.” Pak Wayan Suwecha, Klian Banjar Kelod.
But what holds the Banjar together?
The intriguing answer is that a key element, usually overlooked, is a dual currency system, which gives both the Banjar and the Sekhe structures an exceptionally flexible capability to mobilize local resources. The first of these two currencies is the Rupiah, the conventional national Indonesian currency. The second one is Time. A unit of Time is approximately 3 hours of work in the morning, afternoon or evening; and the kulkul gives a special summoning for people to gather when joint work is called for.
On the average, each banjar starts between seven and ten different projects every month, big and small. And for each project, the expected contributions of each family unit – in Rupiah and in time – are taken into account. In the poorer banjars, the Rupiah constraint is typically the more binding, while in the richer ones the opposite may happen.
In most cases, there is no problem finding enough people to contribute the time needed to complete an activity, and thus contributions of Time are not recorded. In some Banjars, however, where there is a scarcity in the contribution of Time or when there are complaints from some members about the lack of contribution by others, the Klian Banjar records every contribution of Time. Those who cannot contribute their share of Time are asked to either send a substitute person, or to pay in Rupiah at an amount of between 5,000 and 10,000 Rupiah (.50 to 1.00 US Dollar) for each time block missed. The more organized Banjars in Ubud like Banjar Sambahan make the amount of Rupiah of such substitution cost a formal decision at the initiation of each project - when it is felt that everybody’s physical presence is deemed important the substitution cost is higher than for other projects where that is less the case.
Western observers may have missed the importance of this dual currency system because they themselves come from a culture where a monopoly of national money is taken for granted. Even the remarkably insightful historical analysis of Clifford Geertz seems to have missed the role of the Time currency in shaping and maintaining the local social fabric so strong in Bali in the past centuries as well.
But our interviewees themselves are quite clear about this: “Time is a form of money.” The majority even make the point that “Time is more important than Rupiah” for keeping the community strong in the banjar.
The importance of these time exchanges can also be expressed on the negative side: the main form of punishment meted out by the banjar is not a Rupiah fine, but ostracism, the exclusion from the banjar of someone who refuses three times in a row to respect the community decisions. “The Balinese still say today that to leave the Banjar council (krama) is to lie down and die.” And the reason given why such ostracism is so serious is “when they have an important family ceremony, like a cremation, then nobody will give Time for helping them in the preparations.” In short, depriving someone of Time from the community is considered the ultimate retribution.
But why is such a dual currency system so important to keep community spirit and their collective cultural expressions strong?
A Banjar leader with a more philosophical inclination described the dual currency system as being in Yin-Yang relationship, referring to the Taoist concept of complementarity. One of these currencies, the normal Indonesian national currency in this view is of a Yang nature because it cannot be created within the community but has to be earned by competing in the outside world. The other - Time that everybody in principle has as the same birthright - is Yin because it is generated within the community, on an egalitarian basis, and generates cooperation. It is also something that you can’t accumulate and store like conventional money: use it or lose it.
Western languages do not have words describing the Yin-Yang concept, so we will have to use the Oriental word for it. Taoism conceived all forces in complementary pairs like earth-heaven, water-fire, exhaling-inhaling, pushing-pulling, etc. Although obviously separate forces, they are really seen as parts of a single ultimate unity, and therefore necessary to each other. In the specific money and societal context of this paper, the Yin-Yang notion refers to the polarities of cooperation-competition, egalitarian-hierarchical, feminine-masculine, etc. Figure 2 provides a summary of some of these complementary aspects. It includes some of the philosophical aspects that are underlying this worldview, because they are coherent with other important aspects of the Balinese culture. For instance, to a Balinese, the Divine is not only transcendent but also immanent - present everywhere in everything - not just in the temple compound or invisible in the heavens.
This figure can be read from up to down to focus on the internal coherence of each philosophical framework; or horizontally to see the polarity between the different worldviews. What is important to realize is that from a Balinese perspective both views are equally valid, and they spontaneously developed a dual currency system that supports both worldviews. This figure also highlights therefore the differences with our Modern Western culture, where a monopoly of a Yang currency and a Yang coherence has long been considered self-evident.
An interesting difference in attitude can also be observed towards the two currencies: specifically a very flexible Yin attitude prevails towards the Yin currency. If, for example, someone has a sick child that interferes with providing time, nobody will object to him or her not contributing an equal share in time commitments. What matters is the good will underlying one’s actions…
One can see why such a dual currency system within a democratic structure like the banjar provides a lot more flexibility than when on has to operate within only one currency system as is the case in most other parts of the world, including the “developed” ones. People who have a lot of conventional money tend to have little time, and people with little money tend to have more time. So the dual currency mechanism enables some automatic leveling among the social classes.
Furthermore, this dual currency system provides more flexibility in the choice of projects that get approved by the council. In poorer communities projects that require a lot of time are favored by the banjar; and in rich ones the more expensive Rupiah projects tend to pass. For example, we found one single project in a rich banjar that had a Rupiah budget of 1.2 Billion (equivalent to 1.2 million US$). But even the poorest banjar we interviewed has a large group performing at their temple a great kecak dance, which requires a lot of manpower but no expensive garments or props. In short, in both cases, a lot of local resources can get mobilized to meet whatever the community chooses to focus on. And in all cases, a mixture of Rupiah money and Time money are always involved, just the proportional mix tends to vary. This explains why, in Bali, large-scale religious or cultural events involve practically everybody, and are not limited to elitist social groups as tends to be the case elsewhere. This dual currency system may therefore be the real secret for the cultural resilience of Balinese society.
Note that this system goes also beyond cultural events. We found banjars who support their primary schools or even build themselves roads, when the central government isn’t responsive to their demands. There are of course limitations to the substitutability of the two currencies: the cement or other materials needed for such works remains part of the Rupiah budgets.
Community associations that bring people together to plan, budget and implement projects in a fully democratic and participatory way are certainly not specific to Bali. What is more rare, however, is the use by such grass-root structures of a Yin complementary currency, Time, which operates in parallel to the normal cash economy. We believe that it is the marriage of these two concepts, the highly decentralized democratic structure of the Banjar and its use of a dual complementary currency that has enabled and continues to enable the Balinese culture to withstand the external pressures that otherwise would obliterate its rich cultural heritage.
On the complementary currency side, the use of non-conventional currencies has been spreading worldwide over the past decades. There are many traditional forms of exchange functioning throughout the Third World, and more surprisingly in the last decade we have seen similar activities develop exponentially throughout the First World. While there were less than a hundred such modern systems operational in the world in 1990, today there are well over 4,000. For instance, Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS), Time Dollars and Time Banks use different forms of Yin complementary currencies. In Japan the federal government has been supporting pilot projects throughout the country to facilitate the rebuilding of community and local social capital, and the caring of one for another. Several of these exchanges make use of smart cards that process the Yin-type complementary currency.
The Balinese case study reveals that the potential for local democratically representative organizations to mobilize their membership with complementary currency systems could be quite substantial. One key ingredient would be that the membership truly and democratically participates in the selection of the projects for which their time and money would be used. Otherwise, the legitimacy of the projects would quickly be questioned. The resilience of the Balinese approach derives clearly from genuine grass-root support for every activity that the community has decided upon, and the possibility to stop any project whenever a majority in the community starts questioning it.
We obviously do not claim that dual currency systems are a panacea to solve all problems, social, cultural or otherwise. But by embedding culture and society within the economy and ecology of an area, through community associations using a Yin complementary currency, we see the possibility to get one step closer to Karl Polanyi’s vision of an economy that functions in harmony with the culture, society and environment of the area. This has been picked up by contemporary economists to be called the “New Traditional Economy”, which maintains culture and society while allowing people the freedom to pursue market-oriented activities.
Most existing economic theory has as hidden hypothesis that all exchanges need to be facilitated through a monopoly of a centrally controlled currency. Furthermore, it is assumed that any currency used is implicitly value-neutral: it is supposed not to affect the transactions or the relationships among the people using it. As the English put it: “A fact is a fact, and is more respectable than the Lord Mayor of London.” And the Balinese exception provides enough facts – historical and contemporary - that should force us to put a big question mark behind both those implicit assumptions of conventional economic theory.
It is a fact that many transactions and additional activities occur in Bali thanks to the existence of the complementary Time currency systematically used at the local level. This Time currency doesn’t replace the national currency, but operates as a complement to it, and makes possible a strong involvement of even the poorest communities in the rich cultural activities of the island. The Balinese themselves claim that its existence plays a key role in creating the proverbially “strong community fabric” evidenced in their island.
Nobody is saying that community currencies all by themselves are a panacea for third world poverty and cultural degradation. A complex web of interrelated but independent, decentralized but united groups holds the Balinese society together. But at the core of this network lives the Banjar and the Sekhe, and their dual currency system.
In a large-scale survey of the American public, no less than 83% considered that the top priority in the US should be to “rebuild community”. This suggests that the automatic assumption that the dollar is the only monetary tool relevant to solve all problems, especially those of a community nature, may need to be questioned, even in the US.
Finally, one of the most frequent complaints about globalization has been that it entails an erosion of cultural specificities around the world. A dual currency system could be of interest to those who want to rebuild a sustainable social fabric or strengthen their cultural diversities in any country, independently of its degree of economic development.
 Two specific conferences were the landmarks of these realizations in their respective fields. The systematic conflict between socio-cultural integrity and tourism was the main conclusion from the first conference of the American Anthropological Association devoted to “Tourism and Cultural Change” in 1974. The need for trade-offs between these two variables was the main conclusion of the joint UNESCO/IBRD “Seminar on the Social and Cultural Impacts of Tourism” held in Washington in 1976. See Smith V.L. ed. Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989); and Picard M. Sociétés et Tourisme: Réflexions pour la Recherche et l’Action. Paris: Unesco, 1979).
 Iyer, Pico Video Night at Kathmandu and Other Reports from the Not-So-Far-East (New York: Knopf, 1988) pg. 30
 The Westerner who first discovered Bali was the Dutchman Cornelius Houtman in 1597. After a long sojourn on the island, several of his crewmembers decided to stay, establishing the reputation back in Holland that a new “paradise” had been found. “The Last Paradise” became the title of the first book in English on Bali, published in 1930 by the American journalist Hickman Powell. See Covarrubias, Miguel Island of Bali (first edition: New York: Knopff, 1937; republished 1998 in Singapore: Periplus).
 quoted in Picard, Michel Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture (Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996) pg 37.
 Durtain, L. Bali, la fabuleuse et la charmante (Paris: Les Oeuvres Libres, 1956) pg 21.
 SCETO: Bali Tourism Study. Report to the Government of Indonesia (Paris, UNDP/IBRD, 1971) Volume 2, pg 162.
 Dalton B. Bali Handbook (Chico: Moon Publications, 1990) pg 35-36.
 Source for data for Figure 1: Directorate General of Tourism and Bali Government Tourism Office. Disconcertingly, there are no exact statistics of the number of tourists visiting Bali, the only firm number being total foreigners arriving directly by international flights. These rose from 23,000 in 1970 to 1,468,000 in 2000. 95% of those direct arrivals report that they come for vacations, and 30% are on a repeat visit. However, this doesn’t capture foreign or Indonesian tourists arriving via Jakarta on internal Indonesian flights, the ferry arrivals or even the cruise ships mooring at Benoa or Padang. The estimates of total tourism arrivals range therefore between 2.5 and 4 million for 1994; and between 4 and 5 million for 2000. The lower number being the official Tourism Office estimate, it is the one we have been using in our graph.
 de Kleen T. Bali: its dances and customs (Sluyter’s Monthly, 2, 1921) pg 129.
 Picard, Michel Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture (Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996) pg 138.
 See for example for recent opinions by Balinese themselves: Ramseyer, Urs & I Gusti Raka Panji Tisna Bali Living in Two Worlds: A Critical Self-Portrait. (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2000); or by foreigner observers Vickers, A. Bali: A Paradise Created (Berkeley: Periplus Editions, 1989).
 Norohna, R. Paradise Reviewed: Tourism in Bali in Tourism: Passport to Development? Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Effects of Tourism in Developing Countries (ed. E. de Kadt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979) pg 201. See also Cohen E. “Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism” Annals of Tourism Research 1988, 15/3 pg 371-386; Macnaught T.J. “Mass Tourism and the Dilemmas of Modernization in Pacific Island Communities” Annals of Tourism Research 1982 9/3: pg 359-381; McTaggart W.D. “Tourism and Tradition in Bali” World Development 1980 8 pg 457- 466.
 Mead, M. Letters from the field 1925-1977, ed. R.N. Aschen (New York: Harper & Row, 1977) pg 161.
 Elegant R. “Seeking the Spirit of Bali: Despite Fast Food and Discos, the Old Ways Live” The New York Times March 8, 1987 Travel Section, pg 9.
 Picard, Michel Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture (Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996) pg 64.
 Declaration of the Governor of Bali, Ida Bagus Oka, excerpt from Bali: Apa Kata Mereka (Denpasar, 1991) pg. 11
 Geertz, C. “Form and variation in Balinese Village Structure” American Anthropologist 1959, Vol 61: pgs 991-1012. Geertz H. & Geertz C. Kinship in Bali (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975). Guermonprez, J.F. “On the Elusive Balinese Village: Hierarchy and Values Versus Political Models” Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 1990, Vol 24 pg 55-89. Warren, C. Adat and Dinas: Balinese Communities in the Indonesian State (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1993).
 Picard , Michel Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture (Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996) pg 12
 Geertz C. Negara: the Theater State in Nineteenth Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980) pg 49.
 That fun is the main objective of such competitions is illustrated by the fact that the first prize of the biggest competition in Bali - the Kite Festival at Padanggalak - amounts to 1.5 million Rupiah; while the Rupiah cost of the kites ranged in 2002 between 5 and 30 million Rupiah. See Wahyoe Boediwardhana “Beautiful kites fluter in Bali’s skies” Jakarta Post (Thursday, August 1, 2002 pg 18)
 Geertz, C. Negara: the Theater State in Nineteenth Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980).
 Geertz C. Ibid. pg. 49.
 For other historical examples of dual currency systems and their collective psychological impact, see Lietaer, B. Mysterium Geld (Munich: Riemann Verlag,2001) , also available in Japanese with Diamond Press.
 DeMeulenaere, S. Week, D. & Stevenson, I. The Standardisation and Mobilisation of the Tabu Traditional Shell Currency (Papua New Guinea: Assaí Study, July 2002) 54 pgs.
 For more information about Community Exchange Systems in the Global South, see http://ccdev.lets.net
 A full discussion of such modern systems is available in Lietaer B. The Future of Money (London: Random House, 2001) and on www.transaction.net/money/
 Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation: the political and economic origins of our time (Boston: Beacon Press, 1944).
 Rosser, B. and Rosser, M. “The New Traditional Economy: A New Perspective for Comparative Economics?” International Journal of Social Economics, 1999; and Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Chicago: Richard D. Irwin,, 1996).
 Ray, P. and Anderson, S. The Cultural Creatives (New York: Harmony Books, 1999). Also, The Integral Culture Survey: A Study of the Emergence of Transformational Value in America (Research Monograph sponsored by the Fetzer Institute and the Institute of Noetic Sciences, 1996).