This dependence on remittances creates a cycle: migration to get money, money is spent on consumption, and no productive capital is left to build the foundation of the village economy. This is the main cause of the fragility.
Another impact of the Warung Madura migration phenomenon is the crisis of regeneration in the local sectors. The massive migration, especially of productive-age youth, has led to a labor shortage in the agricultural and fisheries sectors in Sumenep villages. The low interest of young people in farming is due to minimal welfare guarantees and unstable market prices. Data shows that the Gini Ratio (income inequality index) in Sumenep Regency is relatively low, which seems to indicate that economic inequality is not high. However, this aggregate data does not always capture the micro-level dynamics occurring within the community.
Sociologically, it shows that a deeper social gap has emerged as a result of migration. Families who have access to migration networks and remittances can “climb the social ladder” significantly, visible through better home ownership or the ability to perform the Hajj pilgrimage. Meanwhile, families who do not have access to these networks are left behind in a subsistence economy. The informal migration pattern facilitated by “tekong” (relatives or friends) creates an exclusive circuit of welfare, where social status is no longer determined by land ownership but by “success” abroad. This creates two different economic realities within one village.
The Paradox and Critique of the Warung Madura Work Ethic
The Madurese community’s work ethic—persevering, unyielding, and tireless—is a manifestation of cultural values that uphold “self-respect”. For them, work is a form of worship, and their greatest fear is not losing possessions but losing a job. This spirit is the key to their success abroad.
However, working 24 hours a day with limited rest can be seen as a form of self-exploitation, whether conscious or not, especially if the profits gained are “not much,” often only enough to “make a living,” pay off debts, and send children to school. The debate over 24-hour operational hours is not just about business regulations but also a philosophical battle between two economic models. On one side, there is modern retail capitalism that wants to standardize working hours. On the other, there is the work ethic of the grassroots community, based on culture and the urgent need to survive. Criticism from netizens and community leaders suggests that these limitations are considered to favor big industry and ignore the social-economic reality of small communities.
Ultimately, the success of Warung Madura in urban areas does not automatically solve the problems in the villages. Warung Madura is a symbol of persistence amid macroeconomic challenges, but it is also a reflection of the failure of the village economy to provide decent and stable employment. Without real economic transformation in the villages of origin, this phenomenon risks becoming a “welfare illusion,” where villages appear prosperous due to remittances, but are actually fragile due to their dependence on an external economy.
Without a genuine transformation of the village economy, this phenomenon could perpetuate a cycle of dependency. Village youth who see their parents successfully “surviving” in the city through a 24-hour stall will repeat the same pattern: migrating, working tirelessly, and sending money home. The village remains stagnant, while the city becomes a place for the accumulation of cheap labor and capital. In the long term, this pattern weakens the potential for village regeneration because its productive workforce is drained elsewhere. What appears to be a story of individual success is, in reality, a story of collective failure to build a self-reliant and equitable economic base.
Furthermore, the 24-hour stalls born from the Madurese work ethic seem to challenge the logic of formal capitalism, but at the same time, they reinforce the face of capitalism itself. By providing non-stop labor, they support the urban culture of instant and fast-paced consumption. When city consumers can access daily goods at any time, they rarely realize the social and health costs borne by the workers behind them. It is at this point that the paradox becomes sharp: the stall, seen as a symbol of independence, is also helping to maintain a system that continues to pressure them.
Do Remittances Truly Strengthen Sumenep’s Economic Foundations?
On a macro level, remittances do contribute to economic growth and physical development in the villages. However, on a micro level, the dominant consumptive use and lack of investment in productive sectors (agriculture, fisheries) show that the local economic foundation is not getting stronger; it is becoming more vulnerable. Remittance money only acts as a “lubricant” for a consumptive economy, not an “engine” that drives self-sufficiency.
The Warung Madura model is a highly effective survival mechanism, thanks to its unique social capital. However, this model cannot be replicated as a solution for village development. Its basis is external migration, not the strengthening of the internal economy. This model solves the problem of unemployment in the villages by “moving” the people, not by creating jobs within the villages themselves.
If the migration trend continues, the biggest risk is a regeneration crisis in the agricultural and fisheries sectors, which are key sectors in Sumenep. This threatens long-term food security and the sustainability of the village economy. Villages will lose their productive workforce and local knowledge in the primary sector.
The Warung Madura phenomenon is a mirror of uneven development. The existence of these stalls is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the inability of the village economy to provide decent and stable employment. Warung Madura is simply the Madurese community’s response to this failure with extraordinary adaptation and resilience. Without strategic intervention, this phenomenon risks becoming a welfare illusion: the village appears prosperous, but its economic foundation is actually fragile.
This welfare illusion becomes even more real when remittances are seen as a “prop” without being followed by a strategy for diversifying the village economy. Grand houses and new motorcycles bought with money from working abroad are often used as indicators of success, even though there is no structural transformation to support the sustainability of the local economy. When remittances stop due to illness, old age, or changes in work conditions in the city, the village will become fragile again, lacking an internal economic engine that can support its life.
Furthermore, the dominant consumptive pattern of remittances creates intergenerational injustice. The generation that migrates bears the burden of extreme work, while the next generation grows up dependent on money transfers, without the capacity to manage the village’s potential. The regeneration crisis in the agricultural and fisheries sectors is not just about lost labor, but also about the loss of traditional knowledge, social networks, and local wisdom that have been at the core of village resilience.
At this point, the question that should be asked is not just how large the remittances are that flow into Sumenep, but whether those remittances are building the village’s productive capacity or perpetuating a fragile economic pattern. Warung Madura can be seen as a small laboratory of the Madurese community’s resilience: it survives with the logic of migration and tireless hard work. But at the same time, it confirms that there is no sustainable way out without bold state policies that balance development between the village and the city.
If Sumenep wants to escape this paradox, then remittances should not stop at consumption. They must be directed toward productive investment: agricultural cooperatives, marine product processing, village energy, or other sectors that strengthen the local economic base. Without that, Warung Madura will remain a heroic symbol, but also a symbol of failure: a stubborn cultural resistance that ultimately surrenders to an unfair economic logic.
*Zainul Abidin, Penulis adalah Research Assosiate The Reform Initiative (TRI)
