THE mm 0F INCREASES m RICE PRODUCTION ON EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DISTRlBUTION m THANJAVUR DISTRICT, scum INDIA. Thesimnhemomm. MICHIGAN STATE umvmsm! CLYDE GEOFFREY SWENSDN 1973 K x' Midfiffl" fate Unzver v 1 \ '~‘?‘_’-r‘\’ ." This is to certify that the 5 thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF INCREASES IN RICE PRODUCTION ON EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT, SOUTH INDIA presented by Clyde Geoffrey Swenson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. dpgrpp in Agricultural Economic s h' ‘O‘O ifll ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF INCREASES IN RICE PRODUCTION ON EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT, SOUTH INDIA BY Clyde Geoffrey Swenson Since 1965-66, India has moved from a heavy deficit in food production towards its' goal of food self-sufficiency. As in other Asian coutries, this rapid growth in production is partly the result of introducing high yielding varieties of foodgrains along with an increased application of fertilizer and other complementary inputs. This "green revolution" is thought to be for the common good in that there is more food available to the total population. However, there has been increasing concern about unemployment and widening disparities in income as a result of the introduction of this new technology. Paddy production is the most important foodgrain cr0p in India. About 30 percent of the total foodgrain area was planted to paddy in 1970-71. There were 5.6 million hectares of paddy planted to high yielding varieties in 1970-71 for 15 percent of the total paddy area. That area is expected to nearly double between 1970—71 and 1973-74. This study was directed towards documenting the effects of the increases in rice production on the employment and income of different groups of peeple at the village level in an area which has adopted the new technology. An It aiiitional :rice pr: Lane in! The 3' are: Tome . Fwd--h . additional purpose was to put the effects of increases in rice production in perSpective with total employment and income from all sources. The specific objectives of this village level study were: 1. To measure the effect of increases in rice production on employment; 2. To measure the effect of increases in rice production on the distribution of income among the agricultural population; and To identify major factors influencing changes in income distribution among farm operators. In conducting the research, two villages were selected in Thanjavur District, Tamil Nadu State, where a locally developed higher yielding rice variety (ADT—27) was first introduced in 1965. By 1968 virtually all of one paddy crop was planted to the higher yielding variety. During the period 1965 to 1970, other higher yielding varieties were adopted in varying extent for the other two paddy crops in the District. A detailed questionnaire was administered to farm operators and landless laborers in the survey villages. Out of a total of 156 farm operator households in the two villages, 145 were used in the analysis, and a 27 percent sample of the 247 landless laborer households was used to represent this group. By means of cross—tabulation, by farm size, tenure, and caste, the employment and income effects for different :Oups :Jiod 5‘96 I..~ ‘l~sl 1:91: grmum within the agricultural population were shown for the period 1965-66 to 1970—71. Gini ratios were computed nMicating the change in distribution of paddy income and Ufial income among farm operators. Also computed were Gini ratios for the distribution of total income among the total agricultural population in the survey villages. To determine the factors responsible for the distribution ofimcome among farm operators, three sets of analysis were performed. Regression analysis was used to measure the effect or concommitant variation in socio-economic \mriables with income distribution. Variations among farm cmerators in the price received for paddy was eliminated to mnermine how the distribution of income would have changed if all farmers had received the same price for paddy. Finally, production function analysis was used to determine if farm operators divided between small and large farms had differing marginal products for different inputs reflecting umir respective ability to invest in these inputs. Results led to these major conclusions: W l. The total quantity of labor used in paddy production increased 7 percent in the survey villages associated with a 22 percent increase in paddy production. Since the change in total cropped area increased only 3 per- cent in the survey villages between 1965—66 and 1970-71 compared to an 11 percent increase for Thanjavur District, _’..| r "'.1 I0. ’ .ul- .nv- ,‘A' u"- o'.‘ ‘ v“ . , " ‘ the increase in employment measured probably under- estimates the increase in paddy employment for the District as a whole. Using the per acre increase in paddy employment in the survey villages, the total increase for the District may have been as high as 15 percent. Although the use of tractors for plowing reduced the quantity of labor used for that Operation, the net effect of increased tractor use could not be determined since the use of tractors may have been a major factor in increases in the double cropping of paddy. Most agricultural households had more employment in paddy production after the introduction of the higher yielding varieties. But there was considerable variation between different types of households in the importance of these changes. While over 80 percent of the total employment for the average landless laborer household was from paddy employment, less than 50 percent of the total employment for the average large farm operator household was from paddy employment. At the extreme, the very large farm operator households were not involved in the physical labor requirements of paddy production at all. Income Distribution Most sample farm operators in the two survey villages had increased real income from the 22 percent increase §; 3.0. but I ova. Ha lib ~~~v "8a a , 'RI 0". "A: fi-VH o.“ 0“ Q. l l". D u" v .‘n~ o.'k Q. ' .6. § - ‘3. - . “u H“ '3 ...r. b ,. A» .-o~r.'1—-u‘- -- in paddy production. The average increase was 14 percent. Variations in increases were due mostly to differences in yield and price received for paddy. The very large farm operators had much higher increases } in the price they received for paddy as well as larger yield increases. Thus, the very large farm operators had the largest increase in income from paddy production with a 20 percent increase. The distribution of income among the sample farm operators was highly skewed. While the Gini ratio for the distribution of paddy income remained virtually unchanged, 0.81 in both periods, farm Operators at the top and bottom increased their relative share of total paddy income. Total income from all sources was some— what more equally distributed with Gini ratios of 0.74 in 1970-71 and 0.73 in 1965—66. Landless laborers had a 14 percent increase in income from paddy labor which was due about equally to increases in real wage rates and increased paddy employment. They gained more total real income than most farm operators groups. However, the landless laborers generally did not perceive any change in income. Being at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in the earlier period, they remained there in spite of relatively higher increases in income between the two periods. The distribution of total income among all agricultural households remained virtually unchanged with a Gini ratio o" ' .mv II‘I a a“: I‘A'I Ii 51 "I I‘I ‘INI CO... It'- 'Onu ‘ O A n. .'F‘ 'O Vt. 'IA vs. . O o. l" , v 1.. .“. 4‘. ‘ .g‘: Q... cm about 0.7 in both periods. But by ordinal groups, the households at the top and bottom received larger shares of total income in 1970-71 relative to others. The largest gainers were the very large farm operators at the top of the ordinal scale and the landless laborers comprising most of the households at the bottom. The total effect of the increased production of paddy was to raise the level of income in the two survey villages. Both the median.and mean income increased by 46 percent at current prices with a 12 percent increase in real terms. The single crucial factor in determination of income from paddy production among farm Operators was net operated paddy area. This implies that the most impor— tant lever in adjusting income from paddy production would be to distribute land more equally. Policy-makers intent upon adjusting the distribution of income could consider setting limits on the area.of land controlled kw the household rather than the present limitation on individual ownership. This would significantly reduce the household income at the tOp end of the income scale which would presumably be more evenly distributed among the rest of the agricultural population. .~§ _‘ -__...——— 'HEIEFFECT OF INCREASES IN RICE PRODUCTION ON EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT, SOUTH INDIA BY Clyde Geoffrey Swenson A THESIS Submitted to . Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Deparument of Agricultural Economics 1973 Dedicated to my parents, Herbert and Adele Swenson ii The writing c jhmey in formal cfhowlalge was j hesis is dedicat‘ his deeply app“ hievement. The inspirat‘ hahaining ASS‘ hing 1967 and l he research prob Experience develo hhrstand the ne Significantly her The field re l-jency for Inter! he Appendix E) his, all reseal lllicular grati‘ 1h necessary ar ldllsl Universi he, . lr0v1ded su hale ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing Of a thesis marks the culmination of a long journey in formal education. The respect for and pursuance of knowledge was instilled in me by by parents to whom this thesis is dedicated. Their continued support and faith in me is deeply appreciated and, I hope, honored by this achievement . The inSpiration for this thesis resulted from working asaairaining Associate for the Ford Foundation in India during 1967 and 1968. This brought me in direct contact with the research problem studied here. In addition, this experience developed into a long-term commitment to better understand the needs and desires of people who have not sunfificantly benefited from man's technological achievements. The field research phase was funded by the United States Agency for International Development, New Delhi, India. (See Appendix E) This included transportation to and from India, all research costs, and living eXpenses. I owe particular gratitude to Dr. Martin Billings for making all the necessary arrangements within USAID. In addition, the Midwest University Consortium for International Activities, Inc. provided supplemental funding for the field research phase. iii Iam indebted to the :dia. Sincere gratitUde i d laborers in Karuppur ar ietime to reSpond to the mention made this stud} assistance was receive< hector of the Agro-Econm held Taylor of the AgriC‘ Ir. V. Rajagopalan at the iieeoumeration of the far will the efforts of Mr. ”I. d. Govindarajan, and M l“? and Mr. John Bioncama SIidhoran provided very a}; (potions. Deep appreciation is l I one ultoral Economics for dilysis and writing phase Ellie my education while Edarling on this study. SPECial thanks are - up I am indebted to the many people who worked with me in India. Sincere gratitude is expressed to the many farmers and laborers in Karuppur and Marudanallur who willingly took the time to respond to the many questions asked. Their cooperation made this study possible. Very helpful advice and assistance was received from Mr. C. Muthiah, Deputy Director of the Agro—Economic Research Center in Madras, Dr. Donald Taylor of the Agricultural Development Council, and Dr. V. Rajagopalan at the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. The enumeration of the farmers and laborers was made possible through the efforts of Mr. C. T. Ramaswamy, Mr. G. Devendiran, Mr. M. Govindarajan, and Mr. R. Chengalvaryan. Mr. Donald Camp and Mr. John Bioncamano of the Peace Corps and Dr. B. Sridharan provided very able supervision for the survey operations. Deep appreciation is expressed to the Department of Agricultural Economics for their financial support during the analysis and writing phase in addition to enabling me to pursue my education while being a Research Assistant before embarking on this study. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Robert Stevens who served as thesis supervisor and major professor for my Program. His advice and counsel was very helpful in completing this phase of the never—ending process of learning. Thanks are also due to Dr. Harold Riley, Dr. Marvin Hayenga, Dr. Subbiah Kannapan and Dr. John Useem who served on my guidance committee. In addition, the interaction with and iv simulation from other face :thichigan State Universi‘ To the Agricultural DI shcerest gratitude for al stwesoi writing while in Tony wife, Ruth and h’deepest appreciation fc hqrhile being without a or such a long period oi stimulation from other faculty members and graduate students at Michigan State University is greatly appreciated. To the Agricultural Development Council, I owe my sincerest gratitude for allowing me to complete the final stages of writing while in their employ. To my wife, Ruth and to Heather and Paul, I express my deepest appreciation for their forbearance and understand- ing while being without a husband and father so frequently over such a long period of time. TABLE I. INTRODUCTION . . . The Problem Situa Background and 0] Procedures . . . 11. DESCRIPTION OF SUR‘ Socio-Economic S District . . , , The Status of th Thanjavur Distri HI. METHODOLOGY Sources of Buplo Measurement Proc Selection of V Sampling Proce Survey Procedr W' ECOTONIC encrcnour l ADDY pROOOcr Classif iCatiOn ( Chan - 96 1n Paddy Net Area , . GmSS Area . Chan . KUIUVai . Sam)a . . ' Thdladi . . Chapter II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTI ON . O O O O O I O O O O O O O The Problem Situation . . . . . . . . Background and Objectives . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA . . . . . . . Socio-Economic Structure of Thanjavur District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Status of the Green Revolution in Thanjavur District . . . . . . . . . . MET HOD OLOGY O I o I o o o o o o o o o 0 Sources Of Employment and Income . . . Measurement Procedure . . . . . . . . Selection Of Villages . . . . . . . Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . Survey Procedures . . . . . . . . . ECONOMIC BACKGROUND TO CHANGES IN INCOME FROM PADDY PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . Classification of Farm Operators . . . Change in Paddy Area 0 o o o o o o 0 0 Net Area 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 Gross area 0 o o 0 O I I o o O O O 0 Change in Quantity of Production . . . Changes in Input Use . . . . . Changes in Total Value of Production . Change in Returns Per Acre From Paddy Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuruvai O o o o o o o o I o o o O 0 Samba . , Thaladi I o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ' 10 15 20 21 25 25 33 34 :2le ISTRIBU r. causes IN D we AGRICULTURAL P0 Changes in Distri Tarn Operators . Distribution of Production . . Net Real Vale Production Real Value Ir Production Ir Labor . . . Cash Income 1 Effect of Incor Effect of Incor Labor on Other Effect of 0the Effect of Nona Distribution 0 Total Real v Total Cash I Effect of Ca Income Changes in Incon H011Etholds Classificatioy H011Sellolds C anges in T01 Effect of Lab: Income . . ‘ Effect of Cas. Income . . Changes in IMO] Chapter V. CHANGES IN DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AMONG THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION . . . . . . Changes in Distribution of Income Among Farm Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Income From Paddy Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net Real Value Income From Paddy Production . . . . . . . . Real Value Income From Paddy Production Including Value of Own Labor . . . . . . . Cash Income From Paddy Production Effect of Income From Other Crops . . . Effect of Income From Agricultural Labor on other Farms . ~ Effect of Other Agricultural Income . . Effect of Nonagricultural Income . . . Distribution of Total Income . . . . . Total Real Value Income . . . . . . . Total Cash Income . . . . . . . Effect of Caste on Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in Income of Landless Laborer Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of Landless Laborer Households . . . . . . . Changes in Total Household Income . . . Effect of Labor Type on Household Income . . . . . . . Effect of Caste on Household Income 0 O o o o u o o o l o c o a a I Changes in Income Distribution Among All Agricultural Households . . . . . . . VI. EMPLOYMENT SHIFTS ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGES IN PADDY PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Chan9es in Agricultural Employment . . . Employment Changes in Paddy Production. 107 107 108 116 122 135 146 152 159 165 165 172 186 189 189 190 195 198 200 213 214 214 yflw/ hotel .b— Total Employ"1E Change in can} Variation in 1 size and Tenul Changes by La] Effect of Tra‘ Employment chan‘ employment Change Households - ' ' Tarn Operators Agricultural Nondgricultur Effect of Te“ Effect of Far Effect of C35 Landless Labor: Agricultural Nonagricultm Effect of Lal Effect of Ca: lll. FACTORS AFFECTING l INCOME AMONG FARM l Specification reduction Var evel of Input Marginal Produ Show 1,eo LICY RTCOMMm NBA 11on IN abjectives and h ajor Results EffeOt ts Productio Of Inc Chapter Page Total Employment Changes . . . . . . 216 Change in Composition of Labor . . . 219 Variation in Labor Used by Farm Size and Tenure . . . . . . . . . . 220 Changes by Labor Operation . . . . . 223 Effect of Tractor Mechanization . . 226 Employment Changes for Other Crops . . 232 Employment Changes for Agricultural Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Farm Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Agricultural Employment . . . . . . 234 Nonagricultural Employment . . . . . 236 Effect Of Tenure . . . . . . . . . . 239 Effect Of Farm Size . . . . . . . . 242 Effect Of Caste . . . . . . . . . . 244 Landless Laborers . . . . . . . . . . 247 Agricultural Employment . . . . . . 247 Nonagricultural Employment . . . . . 249 Effect of Labor Type . . . . . . . . 252 Effect of Caste . . . . . . . . . . 254 VII. FACTORS AFFECTING DISTRIBUTION OF PADDY INCOME AMONG FARM OPERATORS . . . . . . . 257 Effects of Socio-Economic Variables . . 258 Effects of Variation in Paddy Price 264 Estimation Of Efficiency of Resource use 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 268 Specification of Functional Form . . . 268 Production Variables . . . . . . . . . 270 Level of Input Use . . . . . . . . . . 3;: Marginal Products . . . . . . . VIII. summer, porrcy IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 284 Objectives and Methodology - - - ° ° ' ' 3:: Major Results . . - . - - ° ' ‘ ' ° ° ° Effects of Increases in Rice 286 Production on Employment . . . . . . viii Changes in th Labor Employe Changes in Ag Employment Fr Effects of Inc: Production on t Inc0me Among t1: Population . . ‘ Major Factors 1 1 Income Distribi ‘ Production Arno: Policy Implicati< Employment . . Income Distrib‘ Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY 0...... ' mums. , , , . ' 1 Appendix A , , . APpendix B . y _ ‘ APPendix c , , 1 Appendix D , ‘ APPendix E . Chapter Changes in the Total Quantity of Labor Employed in Paddy Production Changes in Agricultural Household Employment From All Sources . . . Effects of Increases in Rice Production on the Distribution of Income Among the Agricultural Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Factors Influencing Changes in Income Distribution From Rice Production Among Farm Operators . . Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Income Distribution . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY s o o I O O O o e o O o o o O O O O APPENDICES . Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPendix B . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPendix E . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ix 287 289 291 297 302 302 303 305 310 314 314 329 332 342 346 LIST . 3.1 Socio-Economic Classi i E tural Households in i 1971. . . . . . . 3.2 Total Land Area Owned I Survey Villages Acc I Caste Categories, ] 3.3 Size Distribution of Villages, Compared Measures for Thanja 3.4 Average Net Operated Operator Household Accordin to S ' ‘ 1970-719. . OClO 1e Agricultural Househo 1n Survey Villa . ges Seem-Economic Cla $3 3.4 &5 L6 L4 LIST OF TABLES Socio~Economic Classifications of Agricul- tural Households in Survey Villages, 1971 D O O O O D D I O O O O O O i I O O D Total Land Area Owned and Operated in Survey Villages According to General Caste Categories, 1970-71 . . . . . . . Size Distribution of Farms in Survey Villages, Compared to Size Distribution Measures for Thanjavur District . . . . Average Net Operated Land Area per Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, According to Socio-Economic Classification, 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Households Included in Sample in Survey Villages, According to Socio-Economic Classification . . . . . . Distribution of Year of Adoption of ADT-27 on Sample Farms in Survey Villages . . . . Distribution of Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages by Farm Size, Tenure, and caste, 1970-71 I D o a o u I u u s I u s o Total Net Operated Paddy Area for Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, By Caste, 1965—'66 and 1970-71 I a u u s o a a e o o Pattern of Distribution of Owned Paddy Land Among Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages: Shares of Ordinal Groups of Households, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . Pattern of Distribution of Net Operated Area Among Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages: Shares of Ordinal Groups of Households, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . X 29 31 32 33 35 36 40 44 45 45 my 4.5 Total Paddy Area Area of Each Pad Operators in Eac 4.6 Average Operated Sample Farms in Size and Tenure, 4.7 Average Operated Survey Villages, 1970-71 . . . . Al Total Paddy Produc on Sample Farms 1965-66 and 1970 L9 Source of Change ' for Each Paddy 1970-71 on Sampl Villages . . . . 4.10 Area of Paddy Crop and Local (Tradi Sample Farms in 1965-66 and 197( All Average Yield of I Paddy Crop on Se Villages, by T6! All Average Yield of l Paddy Crop on S; Villages, by Fa: 1970-71 . . . L13 Qualitative Measu; Normal Yields 0 Crop on Sample 1965-66 and 197 ‘14 Average Level of Each Paddy Crop Villages, 1965- 1‘15 Total Nutrients U Fertilizers for Farms in Survey 1970-71 , . . Table 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 Total Paddy Area and Source of Change in Area of Each Paddy Crop for Sample Farm Operators in Each Survey Village . . . . 48 Average Operated Area in Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, By Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . 50 Average Operated Area on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, By Caste, 1965-66 and 1970-71 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o 51 Total Paddy Production for Each Paddy CrOp on Sample Farms in Each Survey Village, 1965-66 and 1970-71 0 o e o o o e a s o 51 Source of Change in Total Paddy Production for Each Paddy Crop Between 1965-66 and 1970—71 on Sample Farms in Survey Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Area of Paddy Creps Under High Yielding and Local (Traditional) Varieties on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . 54 Average Yield of Paddy Per Acre for Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71 55 Average Yield of Paddy Per Acre for Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Qualitative Measure of Variation From Normal Yields of Paddy For Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . 59 Average Level of Input Use per Acre for Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . 62 Total Nutrients Used Per Acre From Chemical Fertilizers for Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 xi tile All Average Proportion Paid by Tenents landlords, by P 1970-71 . . . . All Average Price of 1 tion Paid by Sam Survey Villages, All Average Cost of In Production on S Villages, by Pad 1970-71 . . . . ill Measurements of Pr by Sample Farm lages, Averages of Sale, 1965—6 All Regression Result Prices Reeeived 1970-71 s e I h All Average Quantity < Sample Farm 0981 by Farm Size, 1! “2 Average Proportiov Paddy Sold Whic] Sale by Sample 1 Villages, by Fa: 1970-71 . . . . ”3 Source of Change Production Betwl For Sample Farm Villages, by Pa "2‘ Value of Inputs a Auruvai Paddy 13 Villages, by Te "15 Source of Change 71 in Total Val for Kuruvai Pad Survey Villages Mi Value of Inputs a Auruvai Paddy Villages, by F 1970-71 , , , Table 4J6 4J7 L18 L19 L20 L21 L22 L23 L24 L25 L26 Average Pr0portion of Total Production Paid by Tenents in Sample Villages to landlords, by Paddy Crop, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Average Price of Inputs for Paddy Produc- tion Paid by Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . 68 Average Cost of Inputs Per Acre of Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Measurements of Prices Received for Paddy by Sample Farm Operators in Survey Vil- lages, Averages and According to Time of Sale, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . 72 Regression Results for Factors Related to Prices Received for Paddy, 1965-66 and 1970-71 a o s o o o o o o o o o o e s a o 74 Average Quantity of Paddy Sold Per Sale by Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . 75 Average Proportion of Total Quantity of Paddy Sold Which Was Stored for Later Sale by Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Source of Change in Total Value of Paddy Production Between 1965-66 and 1970-71 For Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size . . . . . . . . . 79 Value of Inputs and Returns Per Acre for Kuruvai Paddy for Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71. 81 Source of Change Between 1965-66 and 1970- 71 in Total Value of Production Per Acre for Kuruvai Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Value of Inputs and Returns Per Acre for Kuruvai Paddy for Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 xii my All “E w'“ a.» Value of Inputs an Samba Paddy on S Villages, by Ten 1970-71 . . . . Source of Change in Total Value for Samba Paddy Survey Villages Value of Inputs a Samba Paddy on Villages, by Fa 1910-71 . . . . Value of Inputs a Thaladi Paddy o Villages, by Te Source of Change in Total Value Thaladi Paddy 02 Villages . . . Value of Inputs a Thaladi Paddy o Villages, by Fa 1970-71 . . . . Total Net Value P Farm Operators Paddy Crop, 196 Net Real Value Pa for Sample Faro Villages, by Fa 1965-66 and 191 Average Change i1 per Sample Fan Survey Village: 1970-71 by Fan Pattern of Distr Income Among S Survey Village Groups, 1965-6 Table 4.27 L28 4.29 4.30 4.31 32 5.3 34 Value of Inputs and Returns Per Acre for Samba Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Source of Change Between 1965-66 and 1970-71 in Total Value of Production Per Acre for Samba Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Value of Inputs and Returns Per Acre for Samba Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Value of Inputs and Returns Per Acre for Thaladi Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71. 98 Source of Change Between 1965—66 and 1970-71 in Total Value of Production Per Acre for Thaladi Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Value of Inputs and Returns per Acre for Thaladi Paddy on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Total Net Value Paddy Income For Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . 109 Net Real Value Paddy Income Per Household for Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Average Change in Real Value Paddy Income per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages Between 1965—66 and 1970—71 by Farm Size and Tenure . . . . . 114 Pattern of Distribution of Net Value Paddy Income Among Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages: Shares of Ordinal Groups, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . 115 xiii 0i I‘o Table 5.5 36 i7 i8 510 5.11 Real Value Income From Family Labor in Paddy Production on Own Farm Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Real Value Income From Family Labor in Paddy Production on Own Farm as A Proportion of Total Real Paddy Income per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . .119 Real Value of Paddy Income Including Value of Own Labor Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965— 66 and 1970-71 . . . .121 Pattern of Distribution of Total Value Paddy Income Including Value of Own Labor Among Sample Farm Operator House- holds in Survey Villages: Shares of Ordinal Groups, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . .123 Total Value of Paddy Sales and Source of Change for Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Crop, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Paddy Sales as a Proportion of Net Retained Paddy for Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . .126 Total Sales, Total Cash Expense, and Net Cash Income Per Acre for Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . .128 Total Sales, Total Cash Expense, and Net Cash Income Per Acre for Each Paddy Crop on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Farm Size, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . .129 Net Cash Income From Paddy Production Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 0 n v e s u o a 0 e .131 i i i l v . pp AM Net Real Cash Incv tion per Sample in Survey Villas Tenure, 1965—66 5.15 Area of Other Croy Survey Villages All Number of Sample I with Other Crop: Farm Size and T1 5.11 Area of Other Croy tor Household 11 Size and Tenure 3.18 Real Value Income Sample Farm Ope: Survey Villages Tenure, 1965-66 5.19 Total Value of Pr Production per 7 for Sample Farm 1965-66 and 197 5'11 Cash Income From Farm Operator H Villages, by Fa 1965-66 and 197 121 Real Cash Income Sample Farm Ope Survey Villages Tenure, 1965—66 5'21 Total Value Incon on Other Farms Households in E of Employment , 5'23 Number of Sample Survey Village: Labor on Other Tenure, 1965-6! iii Real Value Incomt on Other Farms Household in S‘ Size and Tenur Table 5.14 5.15 ilé il7 il8 il9 i21 5.22 Page Net Real Cash Income From Paddy Produc- tion per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . 133 Area of Other Crops on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . 136 Number of Sample Farm Operator Households with Other Crops in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71 137 Area of Other Crops per Sample Farm Opera~ tor Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . 138 Real Value Income From Other Crops per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . 140 Total Value of Production and Value of Production per Acre from Other Crops for Sample Farms in Survey Villages, 1965- 66 and 1970- 71 . . . . . . . . . . 141 Cash Income From Other Crops Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Real Cash Income From Other Crops Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . 145 Total Value Income From Agricultural Labor on Other Farms for Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages, by Source of Employment, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . 147 Number of Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages Employed in Agricultural Labor on Other Farms, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . 148 Real Value Income From Agricultural Labor on Other Farms Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . 150 XV — able .— 3.25 ill 5.27 5.28 3.29 ill 3.11 3.11 3.13 5'11 Cash Income From A other Fame Per Household in Sur Size and Tenure, Number of Sample 1’ in Survey Villag tural Income Sou Tenure, 1965-66 Total Value of 0th for Sample Farms Source, 1965—66 Real Value Income Sources per Samp hold in Survey V and Tenure, 1965 Cash Income From C Sources per Sam; hold in Survey V and Tenure, 1965 Number of Sample I in Survey Villag Income, by Pam and 1970-71 . . Total Nonagriculti Farm Operator H< Villages, by $01 Nonagricultural C; Farm Operator HT Villages, by Fa 1965—66 and 197 Total Real Value Sample Farm Ope Survey Villages 66 and 1970-71 Real Value Income tor Household i Income Source, 1970-71 . . . Table 5.25 5.26 5.27 528 534 Cash Income From Agricultural Labor on Other Farms Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . Number of Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages with Other Agricul— tural Income Sources by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71. . . . . . . Total Value of Other Agricultural Income for Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Source, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . Real Value Income From other Agricultural Sources per Sample Farm Operator House— hold in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . Cash Income From Other Agricultural Sources per Sample Farm Operator House- hold in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . Number of Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages with Nonagricultural Income, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Nonagricultural Income for Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages, by Source, 1965-66 and 1970—71 Nonagricultural Cash Income per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . Total Real Value Income Received by Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages, by Income Source, 1965— 66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Real Value Income Per Sample Farm Opera— tor Household in Survey Villages, by Income Source, by Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 153 155 157 161 164 168 — 236 ill ii iii iii ill 3.12 ill 3.“ Real Value Income Operator Househo by Income Source and 1970—71 . . Patterns of Distri Income Among Sam holds in Survey Ordinal Groups, Total Cash Income Operators in Su: Source, 1965—66 Cash Income Per Sa hold in Survey I Source, by Tenuz Cash Income Per S: hold in Survey I by Pam Size, 1! Pattern of Distril Income Among Sar holds in Survey Ordinal Groups, Amount of Paddy Ca Cash Income Per Household in Su: Size and Tenure Amount of Paddy P Proportion of '1‘ Financed by Cre Operator Househ by Farm Size an 1970-71 . . . . Average Rate of I Production Loar in Survey Villa Tenure, 1965-16¢ Proportion of Pac‘ Different Sour< ators in Survej and Tenure, 19! Table 535 536 537 538 542 5.44 Ease Real value Income Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Income Source, by Farm Size, 1965 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Patterns of Distribution of Total Value Income Among Sample Farm Operator Houses holds in Survey Villages: Shares of Ordinal Groups, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . 171 Total Cash Income Received by Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, By Income Source, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . 173 Cash Income Per Sample Farm Operator House— hold in Survey Villages, by Income Source, by Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71. . 174 Cash Income Per Sample Farm Operator House— hold in Survey Villages, by Income Source, by Farm Size, 1965- 66 and 1970- 71 . . 176 Pattern of Distribution of Total Cash Income Among Sample Farm Operator House- holds in Survey Villages: Share of Ordinal Groups, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . 179 Amount of Paddy Cash Expense Financed by Cash Income Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . 181 Amount of Paddy Production Credit and Proportion of Total Paddy Cash Expenses Financed by Credit Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Average Rate of Interest Paid for Paddy Production Loans by Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965566 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . 184 Proportion of Paddy Production Loans From Different Sources for Sample Farm Oper— ators in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . 185 xvii 315 Real VAlue Income] ator Household 11 Income Source, b; 1970-71 . . . . 5.46 Classification of Laborer Househol by Laborer Type Ell Total Value Income Laborer Househol Income Source, 1 3.48 Source of Change I in Current and I Income for Sampl in Survey Villag “ Iii Daily Wage Rates : 1 by Sample of La] ‘ Survey Villages Sex, 1965-66 any ml Real Value Income Laborer Househo by Laborer Type .m Real Value Income Laborer Househo by Caste, 1965- 2 Average Relative Blitween 1965'“ InCOme Per Sam PIOdUCtion f0r iam Opetailors “ Survey Vin, l 545 546 547 548 554 Table Ease Real VAlue Income Per Sample Farm Oper- ator Household in Survey Villages, by Income Source, by Caste, 1965-66 and 1970’71 a o o o o o o o o a 0 Q o o e o c 187 Classification of Sample of Landless Laborer Households in Survey Villages, by Laborer Type and Caste, 1971 . . . . . 189 Total Value Income for Sample of Landless Laborer Households in Survey Villages, by Income Source, 1965- 66 and 1970- 71. . . 191 Source of Change Between 1965—66 and 1970-71 in Current and Real Agricultural Labor Income for Sample of Landless Laborers in Survey Villages. . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Daily Wage Rates for Paddy Labor Reported by Sample of Landless Laborers in Survey Villages, by Laborer Type and Sex, 1965- 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . 193 Real Value Income Per Sample Landless Laborer Household in Survey Villages, by Laborer Type, 1965—66 and 1970-71. . . 196 Real Value Income Per Sample Landless Laborer Household in Survey Villages, by Caste, 1965— 66 and 1970— ~71 . . . . . 199 Average Relative and Absolute Change Between 1965-66 and 1970-71 in Real Income Per Sample Household from Paddy Production for Landless Laborers and Farm Operators by Farm Size and Tenure in Survey Villages . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Real Value Income Per Sample Household from Paddy and Other Income Sources for Land- less Laborers and From Operators by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71. . . 207 Patterns of Distribution of Total Value Income Among A11 Agricultural Households in Survey Villages: Share of Ordinal Groups of Households, 1965—66 and 1970~71 209 xviii my 5.55 Pmportion of Ian Operator Househ in Each Ordinal Households in 5 1970—71 . . . . 5.51 Median and Mean Households in and 1970-71 . . 1.1 Distribution of Operations Acc Villages 1.2 Total Number of Production on by Crop and Ty 1970—71 . . . 1.1 Source of Change 1965-66 and 19 Villages, by P 5-1 Average Number 0 Acre of Paddy Survey Village 1965-66 and 19 1'5 Changes in Labor Source of Chan on Sample Farm Labor Operatic 6.6 Area of Plowing- vith only Bull Villages, by P M Number and Propc Tractors for 1 0n Sample Farm Farm Size and M Average Number I with Bullocks without Tractv Paddy Crop, 1‘ 1.9 Huerage Cost of Bullocks Comp. Along with Bu Villages, by Table 5.55 5.56 6.2 6.4 55 6.6 6.8 Proportion of Landless Laborer and Farm Operator Households by Farm Size and Tenure in Each Ordinal Income Group for Sample Households in Survey Villages, 1965— 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Median and Mean Total Income for Agricultural Households in Survey Villages, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Labor for Paddy Cultivation Operations According to Sex in Survey Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Number of Labor Days Used in Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Crop and Type of Labor, 1965— 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source of Change in Paddy Labor Days Between 1965- 66 and 1970— 71 on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop . . . . . . . Average Number of Labor Days Used Per Gross Acre of Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in Labor Days in Paddy Production and Source of Change Between 1965— 66 and 1970—71 on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Labor Operation. . - - - ~ . - . - - - - . Area of Plowing—puddling with Tractors and with only Bullocks on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1965-66 and 1970—71. Number and Proportions of Farm Operators Using Tractors for the Plowing-puddling Operation on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Farm Size and Tenure, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . Average Number of Plowing—puddling Labor Days with Bullocks on Sample Farms with and without Tractor Use in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . Average Cost of Plowing Per Acre with Only Bullocks Compared to Plowing with Tractors Along with Bullocks on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1965-66 and 1970-71. 211 212 216 217 219 221 224 227 228 my; 1.11 Total Labor Days 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.11 1.15 1.16 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.21 121 Sample Farms 1 Types, 1965-66 Total Agricultur Farms in Surve 1965-66 and 19 Average Number 0 Sample Farm 0p Villages, by 1970-71 . . . Total Number of Employment for Karuppur and 1970-71 . . . Average Number 0 Sample Farm 0 Villages, by 1965-66 and 1 Average Proport' Employment So Households in 1965-66 and 1 Average Number c Sample Farm 01 Villages, by I Size, 1965-66 Average Number < Farm Operator by Cost, 1965- Average Number 1 Landless Labo: Source, 1965- Relative Propor Employment in Landless Labo Villages, 196 Total Nonagricu Landless Labo Marudanallur , AVErage Number Days Per Samp in Survey V11 and 1970-71 . Table 6.10 6.15 6.16 617 618 6.19 621 Total Labor Days Used for Other Crops on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Labor Types, 1965-66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . 233 Total Agricultural Labor Days Used on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Labor Types, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Average Number of Days of Employment Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Employment Source, 1965—66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Total Number of Days of Nonagricultural Employment for Sample Farm Operators in Karuppur and Marudanallur, 1965—66 and 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Average Number of Days of Employment Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Employment Source, by Tenure, 1965— 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Average PrOportion of Employment from Each Employment Source for Sample Farm Operator Households in Survey Villages, by Tenure, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Average Number of Days of Emploment Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Employment Source, by Farm Size, 1965- 66 and 1970- 71 . . . . . . . . . 243 Average Number of Days of Employment Per Sample Farm Operator Household in Survey Villages, by Cost, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . 246 Average Number of Days of Employment Per Sample Landless Laborer Household, by Employment Source, 1965— 66 and 1970- 71 . . . . . . 248 Relative Proportion of Paddy and Other Crop Employment in Other Villages for Sample Landless Laborer Households in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . 250 Total Nonagricultural Employment for Sample Landless Laborer Households in Karuppur and Marudanallur, 1965— 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . 250 Average Number of Paddy and other Crap Labor Days Per Sample Landless Laborer Household in Survey Villages, by Labor Type, 1965— 66 and 1970— 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX 253 1.115 1.22 Average Number 0 1.21 1.21 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.1 sample Landles Villages, by L 1970-71 . . . Average Number 0 Days Per Sampl in Survey Vil 1970-71 . . . Average Number Sample Landle Villages, by Estimated Coeff Variables on Operators in 1970-71 1n=14 and 1970-71 . Number of Sampl Villages Grow Size Group, 1 Total Value of Proportion of Inputs Used i Farms in Surv 1965-66 and l Geometric Mean Converted to Farms in Surv Farm Size Gr: Marginal Physic Paddy Product Villages, by 1965-66 and I Marginal Value Paddy ProduC‘ Villages, by Group, 1965- Table 6.22 Average Number of Male and Female Laborers Per Sample Landless Laborer Household in Survey Villages, by Labor Type, 1965-66 and 1970-71 0 o o o o o o o O O C O O I O C O 9 O 6.23 Average Number of Paddy and Other Cr0p Labor Days Per Sample Landless Laborer Household in Survey Villages, by Caste, 1965-66 and 1970-71 0 O O O I O O O O 6.24 Average Number of Male and Female Laborers Per Sample Landless Laborer Household in Survey Villages, by Caste,l965-66 and 1970-71 . . 7.1 Estimated Coefficients of Socio-Economic Variables on Paddy Income for Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages, 1965-66 and 1970-71 (n=l45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Pattern of Distribution of Total Value Income from Paddy Production Using Recorded Paddy Price and Equal Paddy Price for Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages: Shares of Ordinal Groups of Households, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Number of Sample Farm Operators in Survey Villages Growing Each Paddy CrOp, by Farm Size Group, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . 7.4 Total Value of Each Purchased Input as a Proportion of Total Value of All Purchased Inputs Used in Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy CrOp, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Geometric Mean of Production and Inputs Converted to a Per Acre Basis for Sample Farms in Survey Villages by Paddy Crop, by Farm Size Group, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . 7.6 Marginal Physical Products for Inputs Used in Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crap, by Farm Size Group, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Marginal Value Products for Inputs Used in Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, by Farm Size Group, 1965-66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . xxi 253 . 255 O 255 261 267 . 270 . 273 275 277 . 278 13113 All 1.2 1.3 1.1 AIS 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 Total Area of Se Poodgrain Area to 1970-71 . Total Productio And Total P 1963-64 to 197 Average Yield P Foodgrains an grain Crops f 1970-71 . . . Total Area Unde in India by C Proportion of T Varieties in 1970-71 . . . Proportion of T Cropping and Under ADT-27 Farm Size, 19 Census Informat Marudanallur , Total Paddy Are; Paddy Crop, 1‘ Yields of Paddy District, by J 1970-71 . . . Total Paddy Pro District, by 11 b O l n I Indices of Chan Geometric Means Sample Farms CrOp, by Farm 1970-71 . . . Estimated Prodr Vsed in Paddy 1n Survey Vi] Farm Size Grc Table Pass A.l Total Area of Selected Foodgrains and Total Foodgrain Area for India, l963~64 to 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 A.2 Total Production of Selected Foodgrains And Total Foodgrain Production for India, 1963—64 to 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . 315 A.3 Average Yield Per Hectare of Selected Foodgrains and Average Yield of All Food- grain Crops for India, 1963-64 to 1970—71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 A.4 Total Area Under High Yielding Varieties in India by Crop, 1966-67 to 1970-71 . . 317 A.5 Proportion of Total Area Under High Yielding Varieties in India, by Crop, 1966—67 to 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.6 Proportion of Total Paddy Area in Double Cropping and Proportion of Kuruvai Area Under ADT— 27 in Thanjavur District, by Farm Size, 1966 and 1967 . . . . . 319 A.7 Census Information for Karuppur and Marudanallur, 1971 . . . . . . . . 320 A.8 Total Paddy Area in Thanjavur District, by Paddy Crop, 1965- 66 to 1970- 71 . . 321 A.9 Yields of Paddy Per Acre in Thanjavur District, by Paddy Crop, 1960—61 to 1970- 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 A.10 Total Paddy Production in Thanjavur District, by Paddy Crop, 1965—66 to 1970— 71 . . . 323 o u o o n o o a o o - ~ 9 o Indices of Changes in Consumer Prices 324 Geometric Means of Production and Inputs for Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, by Farm Size Group, 1965—66 and 1970-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Estimated Production Elasticities of Inputs Used in Paddy Production on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, by Farm Size Group, 1965—66 and 1970—71 326 xxii AL“ 1.11 Matrix of Simple for Paddy Prod Sample Farms 1 Paddy Crop, 19 1.15 Matrix of Simple for Paddy Prod Sample Farms 1 Crop, 1970—71 Table AJA A.15 Matrix of Simple "Zero—Order” Correlations for Paddy Production and Input Use on Sample Farms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1965-66 . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Matrix of Simple "Zero-Order" Correlations for Paddy Production and Input Use on Sample Fanms in Survey Villages, by Paddy Crop, 1970- 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 xxiii LI [131115 2.1 Cropping Patter Thanjavur Dis 2.2 Socio-Economic Sector in Th 1.1 Location of S to Large To 1.1 Farm Operators Changed in T Categories 5.1 Relative Chang 1970-71 in t and Real Inc Between Econ Villages . . LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Cropping Patterns for Paddy Production Thanjavur District . . . . . . . . . . 10 2n2 Socio-Economic Structure of Agricultural Sector in Thanjavur District . . . . . 12 3.1 location of Survey Villages in Relation to Large Towns in Thanjavur District . 27 4.1 Farm Operators in Survey Villages Who Changed in Tenure or Farm Size Categories Between 1965-66 and 1970-71 42 551 Relative Changes Between 1965-66 and 1970-71 in the Flows of Land, Labor, and Real Income From Paddy Production Between Economic Classes in Survey Villages O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 I 0 O o 20]- xxiv "It is not e about applied seie increase man's ble and his fate Tu“ of all technicall e creation of our mi acurse to mankind of our diagrams an The PI N Since 1965-66, 1111 5001 production to a si1 1001 self-sufficiency - Avid increase in produ< introduction of high yit 111 other crops, along 1 1 Ar and other complemel s‘ - . 111111011111 1965-66 win 1 ' 11111 was 72 million This reached 108 mill 1 a A. I ‘ 2111 Appendix) “0| . “1111s increased p 1 Ton 10011 of all peop 10d . avaliable for cons CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "It is not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. . .in order that the creation of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of our diagrams and equations." Albert Einstein The Problem Situation Since 1965-66, India has moved from a heavy deficit in fomiproduction to a situation of approaching its goal of fomiself-sufficiency. As in other Asian countries, this Impid increase in production is, in part, the result of the hmroduction of high yielding varieties of wheat, rice, maize amiother crops, along with increased application of fertil- izer and other complementary inputs. Moving from a drought Situation in 1965-66'when total foodgrain production for all OfIndia was 72 million metric tons,total production of food— grahm reached 108 million metric tons in 1970-71. (See Taue A.2 in Appendix) Popularly known as the "green revolu— tiWVU this increased production is assumed to be to the cman good of all people in the sense that there is more fc30d available for consumption to the total population. However, uneven distril nical changes have C311 which may be more diff aniadoption of the me In terms of tota important foodgrain or production area of l21 million hectares were 5.6 million hectares < for 15 percent of the high yielding varieti: i11912-73, and the t. [See Tables 11.4 and A Thus, the area 11' ' ' metres 18 expected 1113-14. The purpose hfomation about the area which has adopte 1ll be used to form a hdify the distributi at W or will be ac' g Thr(“Shout the “91 1. economists. lP addy is the 1 However, uneven distribution of the benefits of these tech- nical changes have caused social and political problems which may be more difficult to solve than the development and adoption of the new technology [Wharton, 1969] . In terms of total area, paddy1 production is the most important foodgrain crop in India. Out of a total foodgrain production area of 124 million hectares in 1970-71, 37.6 million hectares were planted to paddy. In 1971, there were 5.6 million hectares of paddy planted to high yielding varieties for 15 percent of the total paddy area. The paddy area under high yielding varieties is expected to reach 9 million hectares in 1972-73, and the target for 1973-74 is 10.1 million hectares. (See Tables A.4 and A.S in Appendix). Thus, the area of paddy planted to high yielding varieties is expected to nearly double between 1970-71 and 1973-74. The purpose of this study was to provide detailed information about the employment and income effects in an area which has adopted this new technology. This knowledge may be used to form appropriate agricultural policies to modify the distribution of benefits in areas which have adopted or will be adopting the new technology. Background and Objectives Throughout the historical development of economic thought, economists' views on the importance of distribution k 1Paddy is the term used for unhulled rice. W’.‘ of income have varied.2 distribution of income as ufocus on problems of 1 Although egalitaria post-independent Indian . five-Tear Plans, most of placed on generating the interest in problems of sector gained the attent liter the introduction c he unevenness of the di tot nology began to beer If the patterns of limited for the period uni sector shows grea‘ . 1151s supported by Ra: 5 Tour 119701 . I 1191111 n ‘ ity tended to di 1116 urban sector ten ”“116 inequality in Milli economic cl 1111. one study of the few for agricultur ohission' 1969] . See 1 , Bro r at enew of (1132:?” cm 1.1 of income have varied.2 The extremes range from viewing distribution of income as the only economic problem of merit, to focus on problems of scarcity or efficiency alone. Although egalitarian principles were espoused in the post-independent Indian constitution and re-stated in the Five-Year Plans, most of the attention of Indian planners was placed on generating the highest rate of economic growth. Interest in problems of distribution in the agricultural sector gained the attention of economists and policy-makers after the introduction of the high-yielding varieties when the unevenness of the distribution of benefits from the new technology began to become more obvious. If the patterns of income distribution in India are examined for the period before the green revolution, the rural sector shows greater equality than the urban sector. This is supported by Ranadive [1968] , tha and Bhatt [1964] , and Iyengar [1970] . In addition, Iyengar found rural inequality tended to diminish in the 1950's while inequality in the urban sector tended to increase. This does not mean that the inequality in income distribution was reduced between all economic classes in the rural sector. In parti- cular, one study of the distribution of income in agriculture declined for agricultural laborers during the 1950's [Planning Commission, 1969] . 2See Bronfenbrenner [1971] , Chapter I, for an histori- cal review of divergent views on the problem of distribution. 1"" ‘ 0311a and Bhatt [19 that income distribution 1 economic development, in establishes itself r levelopment is reached. thrual sector in Indi period of their analysis inequality in early stag udeooncerning the rura increases in agricultur.‘ peer revolution . Although there is illeuproved technology to direction has seems ___'I that even though very f one off as a result 0 fielding varieties of g lfdisparities in incom '. . .the first a nology will be in advanced, literat and which have be closer access to modern farmers.“ Mton further pointer llaracteristics, there “Ponse, which he bel: As most developi: athemed about widenii tha and Bhatt [1963] and others have hypothesized that income distribution becomes more uneven in early stages of economic development, and the trend towards greater equal- ity establishes itself only after a certain stage in economic development is reached. While the degree of inequality in the rural sector in India appeared to decrease during the period of their analysis, the hypothesis about increasing inequality in early stages of economic development can be made concerning the rural sector for periods of rapid increases in agricultural production which characterize the green revolution. Although there is very little data on the effects of the improved technology on income distribution and employment, the direction has seemed to be clear. Mellor [1969] stated that even though very few persons or groups are absolutely worse off as a result of widespread application of the high yielding varieties of grains, there is a substantial widening of disparities in incomes. Wharton [1969] concluded " .the first or early adopters of the new tech- nology will be in regions which are already more advanced, literate, responsive and progressive, and which have better soil, better water management, closer access to roads--in sum, the wealthier, more modern farmers . " Wharton further pointed out even in areas which exhibit these characteristics, there is wide variation of adoption and response, which he believes to be mostly related to farm size. As most developing nations appear to be becoming more concerned about widening disparities in income and unemployment .4 Mal areas, detailed “manicultural product: mutate essential to an agricultural and rural <‘ able for a wheat growing detailed knowledge is la distribution effects fr4 growing area. By analyzing the 1 lution of a high yield thepuupose of this stuu udiucoue of different setting were affected b My considering all additional purpose was the production in pers imue from all sources 2his approach is there inconeeffects from the Ween groups of peopil was between sectors 01 The specific obj£ (1) To measure 1 duction on 6 (2) To measure i duction on ' agriculturai in rural areas, detailed nature of the effects of increases in agricultural production on income distribution and employ- ment are essential to more nearly approach desired goals in agricultural and rural development. While one study is avail- able for a wheat growing area (See Gotsch, 1971) , very little detailed knowledge is known about the employment and income distribution effects from increased production for a rice growing area. By analyzing the distributional effects from the intro- duction of a high yielding rice variety at the village level, the purpose of this study was to document how the employment and income of different groups of peOple within a village setting were affected by the increases in rice production. And by considering all sources of employment and income, the additional purpose was to put the effects of increases in rice production in perspective with total employment and income from all sources. An underlying hypothesis to justify this approach is there may be greater unevenness in the income effects from the introduction of technological changes between groups of peOple at the local level than the uneven- ness between sectors or regions. The specific objectives of this village study were: (1) To measure the effect of increases in rice pro- duction on employment; (2) To measure the effect of increases in rice pro— duction on the distribution of income among the agricultural papulation; and (3) To identify in income distri This knowledge, fz on aid decision-makers toreduce disparities in north. It is also hope usoarchers with questic north which deserve fur To measure the em} local level, two villagl Talilhadu State where e xicevariety (ADT-27) w.- hliii virtually all 0: hiiller yielding variety Met higher yielding vi “tent for the other tw In addition to th Reduction, the employm house often a very la ”Nation in rice-grow Meters. According to ifthe agricultural wot IAborers. Thus, the en “the analysis of effe A socio-economic (3) To identify major factors influencing changes in income distribution among farm operators. This knowledge, from fulfillment of these objectives, can aid decision-makers in the formation of improved policies to reduce disparities in benefits associated with economic growth. It is also hoped that this study will provide other researchers with questions about the process of economic growth which deserve further inquiry and analysis. Procedures To measure the employment and income effects at the local level, two villages were selected in Thanjavur District, Tamil Nadu State where a locally developed higher yielding rice variety (ADT-27) was first introduced to farmers in 1965. By 1968 virtually all of one paddy crop was planted to the higher yielding variety. During the period 1965 to 1970, other higher yielding varieties were adopted to a varying extent for the other two paddy crops in the District. In addition to the income effects arising from increased production, the employment effects are particularly important because often a very large component of the agricultural population in rice-growing areas is composed of landless laborers. According to the 1971 census of India, 59 percent of the agricultural workers in Tamil Nadu State were landless laborers. Thus, the employment effects form a critical part of the analysis of effects from increased rice production. A socio-economic description of the area studied and uilliqes surveyed is pro in the collection of d. 'uchapter III. The ear iistribution of income ‘ ullages is given in Ch. The empirical fin: ooiiy production on the operators and landless Bureaus of cross-tabul effects for different 9 tion is shown. In addi hincone distribution if the studied villages thchanges in employme Production along with 1: types of farm operator tentatively. Chapter VII endea ilsuonsible for the mea iron paddy production a inaction analysis was t iiiided between small a Mutts for different Why to invest in t1 iKeith measure the eff I“fin-economic variabl‘ iiiition, variations a! villages surveyed is presented in Chapter II. The framework for the collection of data and empirical analysis is given in Chapter III. The economic background to changes in the distribution of income from paddy production in the survey villages is given in Chapter IV. The empirical findings of the effect of the increased paddy production on the distribution of income among farm operators and landless laborers is presented in Chapter V. By means of cross-tabulation, the employment and income effects for different groups within the agricultural popula— tion is shown. In addition, aggregate measures of changes in income distribution for the total agricultural population of the studied villages are presented. Chapter VI measures the changes in employment produced by the change in rice production along with the employment effects of different types of farm Operator and landless laborer households, respectively . Chapter VII endeavors to determine what factors were responsible for the measured changes in income distribution from paddy production among farm operators. Production function analysis was used to determine if farm operators divided between small and large farms had differing marginal products for different inputs reflecting their respective ability to invest in these inputs. Regression analysis was used to measure the effect or concommitant variation in socio—economic variables with income distribution. In addition, variations among farmers in the prices for paddy us eliminated to deter: home distribution wou.‘ received the same price mines the findings potential for modifying effects along with recon was eliminated to determine how the general measure of income distribution would have changed if all farmers had received the same price for paddy. Finally, Chapter VIII summarizes the findings and considers policies which have potential for modifying employment and income distribution effects along with recommended topics for future research. DESCRI: Thanjavur is one ‘ hsouthern India and i oftheSouth". The diS oust of Tamil Nadu Sta ofthe north latitude. equator. Thanjavur Dis the of the Cauvery Ri has of crOpland, abou tidy. With the benefi icconts for nearly one iiiuore than one-fourt the State. There are two mai listrict CHAPTER II DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA Thanjavur is one of 13 districts in Tamil Nadu State in southern India and is commonly known as the "rice bowl of the South". The district is situated on the south east coast of Tamil Nadu State and lies between 9°50‘ and 11°50‘ of the north latitude. It is about 500 miles north of the equator. Thanjavur District is part of a highly fertile delta of the Cauvery River. Of approximately 1.5 million acres of crOpland, about 80 percent is devoted to growing paddy. With the benefit of natural flow irrigation3 it accounts for nearly one-fourth of the total area under paddy and more than one-fourth of the total production of paddy in the State. There are two main crepping patterns in Thanjavur District, single-cropping and double-crOpping. (See Figure 2.1) Where the single crop of paddy or Samba is grown, the nursery is usually sown in July, transplanted in September and harvested in February. The double-crOpping pattern begins 3The irrigation system which is the oldest in recorded history had its origin with the construction of an irriga- tion dam by the Chola dynasty in the second century A.D. The system was later improved under British rule in 1886 and legrtended to additional areas between 1925 to 1934 [I.A.D.P., 68]. , ’7 Pattern KuruV‘ Double Single ‘L Figure 2.1.--Croppin ThanjaV iii the Kuruvai, short issom in June with tr hSeptenber and early notion crop, it can 1: Cohen Thaladi. The no it October, transplant mili- Whether or not horn is used has def “gallon water. Trac‘ ‘e 9“ dmlbleeropped wit Sooio~Eeonomic St! The rural sector vhh stratified POPUJ T Th E ——_—4 Jul Aug. Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb. Pattern Double Single Figure 2.l.-—Cropping patterns for paddy production in Thanjavur District. wiflithe Kuruvai, short duration crop. The Kuruvai nursery is sown in June with transplantation in July and harvesting hiSeptember and early October. Because Kuruvai is a short mnation crop, it can be followed by a second paddy crop CdUfid Thaladi. The nursery is usually sown in September andChtober, transplanted in November and harvested in Feb— nmry. Whether or not the single crop or double—cropping rmttern is used has depended on the early availability of irrigation water. Traditionally about 300,000 acres have bemidouble-cropped with paddy in Thanjavur District. Socio-Economic Structure of Thanjavur District4 The rural sector of Thanjavur District exhibits a hi13le stratified population consisting mainly of landowners, M 4The background to this section is based on Beteille U966] unless otherwise indicated. tenants, and landless lE cleavage is between owne isavide disparity ever one land is owned by Caste has been an ind ownership. To the noiety,5 caste has bee: on land ownership and gain is divided along include Brahnins, non-B Lhhndovners have tra bu-Brahnins have been Within the landow hi heated; namely, abs hiholders. Absentee hi' to in other towns C Mn ' . hi r land to tenants e ht - Y hirasdors are g hm . eviilage Where 1:} dd . llla‘ vatlon S‘\ n ll tenants, and landless laborers (See Figure 2.2) . The basic cleavage is between owners and nonowners of land. But there is a wide disparity even within the landowning groups. Most of the land is owned by a relatively small number of people. Caste has been an important factor in determination of land ownership. To the extent Tamil Nadu State is a Hindu society, 5 caste has been an important concommitant variable with land ownership and economic classes. If the caste system is divided along very broad hierarchical lines to include Brahmins, non—Brahmins, and adi—Dravidas or Harijans, the landowners have traditionally been Brahmins, while the non-Brahmins have been tenants and Harijans landless laborers. Within the landowning class, three categories can be delineated; namely, absentee landowners, mirasdors and small landholders. Absentee landowners own land in a village but reside in other towns or cities. About half of the land- owners in Thanjavur belong in this category. They lease their land to tenants either directly or through a third party. Mirasdors are fairly big landowners who are residents of the village where they own most of their land but have very little to do with actual cultivation. They normally hire a farm supervisor for this purpose. Mirasdors may also lease some of their land to tenants. Small landholders are residents of the village and are directly engaged in the cultivation . W 5 . . . Hindus make up 90 percent of the population in Tamil Nadu State [Statistical Abstract of India, 1969] . Wag caste Divisions M.Brahmin5 bi-Dravidas W bore 2.2.s-soci°‘ec°: sector in 12 General Caste Flows of Land, Labor and Income Divisions Between Economic Classes Absentee Landlords Mirasdors Brdmuns Owners— 4 Operators éyo 7° Owner— tenants land g Non-Brahmins ‘2, o Tenants ‘3 Labor Wages Adi-Dravidas £232:Z:: Figure 2.2.--Socio—economic structure of the agricultural sector in Thanjavur District. The tenants lease uirasdors. The tenant class to the extent sma hexpand their enterpr variable inputs in the fertilizer, pesticides, oontribution the landl lbepaynent of the am There have been bistnict. One is kno lord receives a fixed lease system is known lbeteuant pays a fixe lithe land. The tena “'10 percent of the h lieunly one in use in Tensions between loud the factors. Tl tobireoeived by each if tenure guaranteed 1) “in position betwe hilly on caste and 0t MEIlacononic factor The landless lab hey I . erarclucalstruc “lily and the least #‘ 13 The tenants lease land from absentee landlords and/or mirasdors. The tenant class may overlap with the landowning class to the extent small landowners lease additional land to expand their enterprises. The tenant supplies all of the variable inputs in the production process including seed, fertilizer, pesticides, draft power and labor. The only contribution the landlord makes in addition to the land is the payment of the annual land revenue to the government. There have been two systems of lease in Thanjavur District. One is known as the Waram system where the land- lord receives a fixed proportion of the harvest. The second lease system is known as the Kuttahai system. In this case the tenant pays a fixed quantity of the harvest for the use of the land. The tenant may pay the landlord as much as 65-70 percent of the harvest. The Kuttahai system is basically the only one in use in Thanjavur District today. Tensions between the landlords and tenants center around two factors. The first is the share of the produce to be received by each party, and the second is the security of tenure guaranteed by the relationship. The stronger bar— gaining position between the landlord and tenant depends partly on caste and other social factors in addition to purely economic factors. The landless laborer is at the bottom of the scale in this hierarchicalstructure. He (or she) has the least security and the least income. While the tenant is assured employment for the s lease, the landless lab position of having to s lair (1966] describes t producers, 'being the liefields.‘ Landowne landless laborers to d process. The only exc n is able to cultiva labor. But even in th labor during the stres Various attempts syllable distribution Share to tenants, and thorns by state legi hrs have not been verj lliration of Ceiling 0: 0itlimit on individua reduced to 15 acres. {Except for very large illness different memh Wilde‘s. the law n ”Minolta trust at \———— 6 in Any laws dealir trivate-legiSlature 9“ 1“ the Natior # 14 of employment for the season once an agreement is made on a lease, the landless laborer is most often in the tenuous position of having to seek employment on a day—to-day basis. Nair [1966] describes these landless laborers as the primary producers, "being the ultimate hired who actually work in the fields." Landowners and tenants alike depend upon the landless laborers to do the manual labor in the production process. The only exception is the very small landholder whois able to cultivate the land with his own and family labor. But even in this case, he normally hires additional labor during the stress periods of transplanting and harvesting. Various attempts have been made to provide a more emfltable distribution of land, increase the security and flmre to tenants, and improve the legal position of landless laborers by state legislative acts.6 For the most part these lawslmve not been very operative. The Madras Land Reforms Wixation of Ceiling on Land) Act of 1961 set 30 acres as thelimit on individual holdings. More recently this was reduced to 15 acres. This limit was very simply avoided (except for very large landholders) by dividing the holdings between different members of the family. For very large landholders, the law was at times avoided by putting the land inUJa temple trust and to continue operating the same M 6Any laws dealing with agriculture must be passed by Um state legislature because agriculture is a "State subject" as given in the National Constitution. qraatity of land for a fixed the tenant's sha blimping the lease heroentestible in ca interests) have achie their position. Ac lot of 1955, the tenan recent legislation has llmtitv of six and tw recover any quantity a laborers who work for lllal status of landle hliring them on a da The Status The Green Revolu‘ llvlvctiou of foodgraiv horticultural scient fielding varieties alo nary inputs includi MeTinning of the G indiefeller Foundation “To in 1944 to a BIieties- The Rocket ill Foundation later l search Institute (IF 4‘ 15 quantity of land for a nominal fee. Although legislation has fixed the tenant's share at 60 percent, this may be avoided by keeping the lease an oral agreement. Thus it has not bemicontestible in court. The small tenants (with written mneements) have achieved some improvement in the security hitheir position. According to the tenants and Pannaiyal Act of 1955, the tenants cannot be evicted arbitrarily, and recent legislation has given tenants security within the quantity of six and two-thirds acres. The landlord can recover any quantity above this area. Except for permanent laborers who work for the same farmer through the year, the legal status of landless laborers is conveniently avoided bylflring them on a day—to—day basis. The Status of the Green Revolution in Thanjavur District The Green Revolution refers to the greatly increased pmoduction of foodgrains due to the technical breakthrough hyagricultural scientists in the development of higher- ynflding varieties along with the increased use of comple- mentary inputs including fertilizers, water, and pesticides. The beginning of the Green Revolution can be traced to the lmckefeller Foundation‘s establishment of a research center hrMexico in 1944 to develop high~yielding wheat and maize varieties. The Rockefeller Foundation together with the FoniFoundation later established the International Rice ImSearch Institute (IRRI) inr 1962 in the Philippines to lavelop high-yielding tnresearch instituti notice varieties cap that two staple crops. By importing see lvlreat from Mexico and able to participate in Expand production very lithe new varieties o 1969 there were 34 mil lllol represented one‘ lsialBrown, 1970]. Thanjavur Distri lint-yielding variety introduced. The Green llvvical in the sense ‘ llnanother country. trench station by on Titty of rice. It i {mulled at the Inter illIllines, but it he l1 local consumption- !“ i“ this area. Field trials of i} . ””3““ District iv acres recorded a y 16 develop high-yielding varieties of rice [Brown, 1970] . These two research institutions were able to develop prolific wheat and rice varieties capable of at least doubling the yields of these two staple crops. By importing seeds of these high-yielding varieties (wheat from Mexico and rice from the Philippines), Asia was able to participate in this technological revolution and expand production very rapidly. There were only 200 acres of the new varieties of wheat and rice in Asia in 1965. By 1969 there were 34 million acres under the new varieties which represented one-tenth of the total grain acreage in Asia (Brown, 1970]. Thanjavur District is an example of an area where a new high-yielding variety of rice (ADT-27') has been successfully introduced. The Green Revolution in Thanjavur District was atypical in the sense that the new variety was not imported from another country. ADT-27 was deve10ped at a local research station by crossing a Japonica with a local Indica variety of rice. It is not as high-yielding as the varieties developed at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, but it had the added advantage of acceptability for local consumption--which the early IRRI varieties did not have in this area. Field trials of ADT-Z? were established on 200 acres in Thanjavur District in 1964 [Mayla and Madappa, 1967]. The 200 acres recorded a yield of nearly 4,400 pounds per acre vhich was more than dc llated by the results, and fulfilled a plan l reproduction program 1‘ 3,000 acres was about During the 1967-0 thishigh-yielding var 100,800 acres the pret double-cropped paddy a l0592,300 acres [Swe] nd1070-71, other var tanADT-Zl such as I] introduced on a more : season virtually all < 05 the Thaladi crop we Thicoubination of in< ill extension of doubl 1'lllion of paddy in tl 355-66 and 1970-71. by idol 8, the benefits 0‘ it Share d evenly b N The a :qu Pparent c t o and???" [197011 va" 0 rretie: Fro In StatiStics r' 17 which was more than double the District average paddy yield. Elated by the results, the extension department formulated and fulfilled a plan for a 5,0007 acre demonstration-seed— reproduction program in 1965. The average yield over the 5,000 acres was about 3,850 pounds per acre. During the 1967-68 cr0p season, the area planted to this high-yielding variety was 526,700 acres compared to 188,800 acres the previous crop year. At the same time, double-cropped paddy acreage increased from 427,500 acres to 592,300 acres [Swen‘son, 1967]. More recently in 1969-70 and 1970-71, other varieties with higher yielding potential than ADT-27 such as IR-5, IR-B and CO—33 (Karuna) have been introduced on a more selective basis. By the 1970-71 crop season virtually all of the Kuruvai crop and about 35 percent of the Thaladi crop was planted to high-yielding varieties.8 The combination of increased use of high-yielding varieties and extension of double—cropped acreage increased total pro- duction of paddy in the District by about 30 percent between 1965-66 and 1970-71. Although this was a major contribution to the food supply in the State as well as the country, as a whole, the benefits of the increased output were apparently not shared evenly by all groups in the District. 7The apparent contradiction of this figure with that given by Brown [1970] may possibly be attributed to Brown's exclusion of varieties deve10ped indigenously. 8From statistics supplied by I.A.D.P., Thanjavur. Analysis of adoPt lnovations (use Of imp ore adopted on all siz Thanjavur District.9 (5 study of adoption rates sated a negative coeffi groportion of operated Even though the small i it new variety, becaus it District from the e farmers who had grown a on if they were able antities of complemez are Profitable. In at ‘isslaborer fared in v lilting . The Political, a. 18 Analysis of adoption rates for 1967-68 shows the new innovations (use of improved variety and double-cropping) were adopted on all sizes of farms at about the same rate in 9 (See Table A.6 in Appendix) Another Thanjavur District. study of adoption rates for the previous year (1966-67) indi- cated a negative coefficient for farm size with respect to proportion of operated area planted to ADT-27 [Schluter, 1972] . Even though the small farmers and tenants were able to adopt the new variety, because the seed was available throughout the District from the extension department or neighboring farmers who had grown ADT-27 the previous year, it was not known if they were able to easily purchase the necessary quantities of complementary inputs which made the new varieties more profitable. In addition, it was not known how the land- less laborer fared in this rapidly increasing production setting. The political, as well as economic, importance of the landless laborers cannot be overlooked. Over the last few years there has been a continuing tension in the eastern region of the District between the landless laborers and cultivators of land over the issues of wage rates and the bringing in of laborers from outside the area during periods of high labor demand. This erupted in a bitter clash in December, 1968, and resulted in 43 people being killed [New m. 9From further analysis of data collected in the "1967 Kuruvai Paddy Survey" [Swenson, 1967] . lork Tires, 1969] . It laborers and cultivate: at least in some areas uric-economic levels leadership, there is e responding to more rad Connoist factions [Ne 19 York Times, 1969] . It would appear the two groups (landless laborers and cultivators) are becoming politically polarized at least in some areas of the District. While the higher socio-economic levels cling to the more traditional political leadership, there is evidence that landless laborers are responding to more radical leadership via India's several Communist factions [New York Times, 1970] . This study exam received by and ample rural sector. Househ asthe unit of analys bold is the frame of Secondly, the househo astbe economic unit labor is a part of has, the household framework for the st Although the pr resulting from the te alter sources of incc because of the hypoth Woes as a major r6 llocluction. While Thanjavul hilly production, otl V 10See Ranadive lillness of the housel pan indicates thel llouneusures for th6 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY This study examines factors influencing the incomes received by and employment within households in the agricul- tural sector. Households rather than individuals are used as the unit of analysis for two reasons.10 First, the house- hold is the frame of reference for consumption decisions. Secondly, the household, rather than the individual, acts as the economic unit on the production side. Each household member is a part of the "firm” in the production process. Thus, the household perspective provides the conceptual framework for the study of changes in income and employment. Although the primary focus has been on the changes resulting from the technological changes in paddy production, other sources of income and employment have been included because of the hypothesized importance of other income sources as a major resource in the investment in paddy production. While Thanjavur District is basically a monoculture in paddy production, other crops are grown such as coconuts, loSee Ranadive [1968] for a discussion of the appropri- ateness of the household as the recipient unit. Also, Morgan [1962] indicates there is little difference between distribu- tion measures for the household and individual. moss, bananas , and income for investment labor on their own far fans for wages. Thes paddy) provide an ad ud/or sales. Nonagri factor. Occasionally, uybe engaged in emp uriculture. Income business can then be voduction. A note should b is to the people in T Sidered a superior fo Movie groups in ma. Mjavur, including 1 rice. It is their has 5lill farmers will not for consumption, they ilimes to cover the < Sources c In order to mea: ‘11 sources of employ! huedure was followed v 11For an exam?le l”theaast Farm Manage! 21 mangoes, bananas, and foodgrain crops which can provide cash income for investment in paddy production. In addition to labor on their own farm, many farmers also work on other farms for wages. These wages which are mostly paid in kind (paddy) provide an additional source of paddy for consumption and/or sales. Nonagricultural income may also be an important factor. Occasionally, one or more members of the household may be engaged in employment or have a business outside of agriculture. Income from this nonagricultural employment or business can then be funneled back into investments in paddy production. A note should be made as to how important paddy or rice is to the people in Thanjavur District. While rice is con- sidered a superior foodgrain and not eaten by lower socio- economic groups in many other parts of India, everyone in Thanjavur, including low caste landless laborers, eat some rice. It is their basic sustenance of life. Thus, very small farmers will not only retain all of their production for consumption, they will also use cash income from other sources to cover the cash expenses in paddy production. Sources of Employment and Income In order to measure the interrelated changes between all sources of employment and income, a complete budgeting procedure was followed.11 This included nonagricultural as llror an example of the use of the complete budget, see Northeast Farm Management Extension Committee Bulletin [1967] . veil as agricultural i adincoue sources for halo: (1) Paddy production For each paddy c theproduct may be di During the growing as labor within the agri denonagricultural s demst important in Casual labor is hired Mantee of future w arkind. The other t lugs landowners is p Maborer is employs Idler daily wage and i"Willy. As indicate lire at least some 1a) IIploving, transplani lire all of the labor “tion to the product: Expenditures on We major component; Flowing. Chemical fe: hovide a direct link 51!an also purchase 22 well as agricultural income. Details of possible employment and income sources for each agricultural household are given below: (1) Paddy production For each paddy crop in a given year the total value of the product may be divided between four possible claimants. During the growing season expenditures are made on hired labor within the agricultural sector and purchased inputs in the nonagricultural sector. Hired labor may be of two types. The most important in terms of numbers is casual labor. Casual labor is hired on a day-to-day basis without any guarantee of future work. The daily payment may be in cash or kind. The other type of labor employed mostly by. the large landowners is permanent labor or farm servant. Here, the laborer is employed for a year at a time and receives a smaller daily wage and a yearly payment which is mostly paid in paddy. As indicated before, nearly all farm operators hire at least some labor for operations of heavy demand such as plowing, transplanting and harvesting. And some farmers hire all of the labor component with no family labor contri- bution to the production process. Expenditures on purchased inputs are divided into three major components, namely, fertilizer, pesticides and Plowing. Chemical fertilizers and pesticide purchases provide a direct link to the nonagricultural sector. Some farmers also purchase manure or compost where they don‘t fl lave their own source land may be by hulloc find it necessary to don't have their own lion sooner, an incre tractor plowing from first and agricultura attractors. If the farm ope land, a portion of liter deducting all 0 dilly crop, the remai lathe farm operator {1| Other crops Aset of claima ielineated similar to “l have purchased inl landlord as expenditu 33) Agricultural lab This source app ills laborers. For t ”use to supplement dietion and other are lthorax. agricultural llltvnrnajor if not 23 have their own source or sufficient supply. Plowing the land may be by bullocks or tractors. While some farmers find it necessary to hire for bullock plowing because they don't have their own bullocks or want to finish the opera- tion sooner, an increasing number of farmers are hiring tractor plowing from either public institutions (State seed farms and agricultural extension depots) or private owners of tractors. If the farm Operator is leasing--in part or all of the land, a portion of the harvest is paid to the landlord. After deducting all of these cash and kind expenses for each paddy crop, the remainder of the value of production accrues to the farm operator household. (2) Other crops A set of claimants of other crop production can be delineated similar to paddy production. The farm operator may have purchased inputs, hired labor, and a payment to a landlord as expenditures as well as additional employment. (3) Agricultural labor This source applies to farm operators as well as land- less laborers. For the farm Operator, it is an additional source to supplement employment and income from paddy pro- duction and other crops on his own farm. For the landless laborer, agricultural labor (predominantly on paddy) repre— sents a major if not sole source of employment and income. fl (4) Other agriculturr In addition to sources, other agric prises as goat produ rental, income from rents received where land. l5) Nonagricultural Nonagricultura general categories , laslness or investme rent as a general ca feasional services 0 activities may vary Stall to being an ex trident. Various bu lmaples include prov ulls. The direction c Production and nonagl the size of the farm he very small operai alurces to paddy prov “vase income derivr "at nonagricultural Depending on 0' 24 M) Other agricultural income In addition to the above specific agricultural income sources, other agricultural income includes such enter- prises as goat production, milk production, equipment rental, income from managing other's land or rental pay— ments received where a landowner leased-out part of his land. (5) Nonagricultural sources Nonagricultural sources can be divided into three general categories, namely, nonagricultural employment, business or investment income. Nonagricultural employ- nmnt as a general category includes all labor and pro- fessional services outside of agriculture. The range of activities may vary from being a servant in a local tea stall to being an extension worker employed by the gov— ernment. Various businesses may also be owned and operated. Examples include provision shops, cycle rental, and rice mills. The direction of the flow of resources between paddy production and nonagricultural income sources may depend on the size of the farm as well as the tenure status. For the very small operator, the flow may be from other income sources to paddy production. The large farm operators Hwy use income derived from paddy production to invest in the nonagricultural sector. Depending on ownership of land and size of holding, the fan operator may als onland, a water and acre basis. In the tax. In addition, i pay what is called a The above descr' notand income to t the process by which hold was derived. A format for income so on mploynent follow To obtain as mu relationships betwe logistical reasons, i ‘0! the analysis. 11 ntions and broader : instead of one will 1 tion of villages giVl (1) High perce cropping P farmers ha the high Y varieties limited . 25 farm operator may also have tax liabilities. For those who own land, a water and land tax assessment is made on a per acre basis. In the case of tenants, the landlord pays the tax. In addition, individuals owning more than 7.5 acres pay what is called an agricultural income tax. The above description of the possible sources of employ- ment and income to the household indicates in a general way the process by which total employment and income to the house- hold was derived. A detailed complete budget accounting format for income sources is given in Appendix B. Information miemployment follows from the accounting model for income. Measurement Procedures Selection of Villages To obtain as much detail as possible on the inter— relationships between socio-economic groups as well as for logistical reasons, it was decided to select two villages for the analysis. In addition to a larger number of obser— vatknm and broader sample, the reason for two villages hmtead of one will become clear in the criteria for selec- tion of villages given below. (1) High percentage of area in Kurvai~Thaladi double- cropping pattern. This by itself would imply the farmers have a greater possibility of using one of the high yielding varieties. Use of high yielding varieties on single crop Samba land has been more limited. L” L“ a:- uw ) Yield perfo indications the purpose of change, large incr Infrastruc area had a and servic city, and ' allowing 0 Predominan the analys' determinan dominant p facilitate One villag center; one for this cr inter—relat and nonagri to possibli Using the above “Karuppur were 563 Iiles of Kumbakonam i Whitman.12 (See J i w 12 Thiag asamudral Elected—but later I 1”crease in paddy pr‘ 26 (2) Yield performance. Areas selected should have indications of a large increase in yield. Since the purpose of the study is to measure the effects of change, it was crucial to select areas where large increases in yield had been experienced. (3) Infrastructure. It is important to make sure the area had at least a minimum of communications links and services. The lack of adequate roads, electri— city, and input supply could be a hindrance in allowing change to take place. (4) Predominantly Hindu population. Since part of the analysis is to determine how caste acts as a determinant or concommitant variable, the pre— dominant presence of a Hindu pOpulation would facilitate this analysis. (5) One village near a large market and/or industrial center; one village more isolated. The reason for this criterion was to measure the differential inter—relationships between the agricultural sector and nonagricultural sector because of proximity to possible outside employment opportunities. Using the above criteria, the villages of Marudanallur mm Karuppur were selected, Marudanallur being within three ndles of Kumbakonam and Karuppur being ten miles from Mmmakonam.12 (See Figure 3.1) Kumbakonam is a town with M 12 Thiagasamudram (6 miles from Kumbakonam) was initially §elected——but later dropped because of lack of significant umrease in paddy production. Karuppur replaced Thiagasamudram. \ figure 3.1.--Locatic large t 27 OMayuram O Kumbakonam Marudanalur A Karuppur H O Thanj avur 2:? NagapattinamC) g m o a m KEY ___ District Border C) Towns with greater than 50,000 population A Survey villages Figure 3.l.——Location of survey villages in relation to large towns in Thanjavur District. a population of abou brassware manufactur activities involve s tural industry or ma Both villages are close to the sou before most other pa irate heavily on pad 92 percent of the la hrudanallur has tra doable-cropping of P over the last few ye After selectio all households to de for sample selection “tuber of households tion of agricultural Table 3.1 along with It is difficul either village in te lothe 1971 census [ ll ‘ . “1011 for a Villag u I ”Plano“ of 967 ar {is ac ' . p “veil, it won I c | elitism villages m 28 a population of about 100,000. Although there is some small brassware manufacturing in Kumbakonam, most of the employment activities involve services. There is no major nonagricul— tural industry or manufacturing in Thanjavur District. Both villages lie in what is known as the Old Delta and are close to the source of canal irrigation, getting water before most other parts of the District. They both concen- trate heavily on paddy production. In both villages about 92 percent of the land area is planted to paddy. While Marudanallur has traditionally had most of its land under double-cropping of paddy, Karuppur has shown an increase overijm last few years. After selection of the villages, a census was taken of all households to determine the extent of each economic class for sample selection. (See Table A.7 in the Appendix.) The number of households found in each socio-economic classifica— tion of agricultural households for each village is shown in Table 3.1 along with the totals for both villages. It is difficult to determine the representativeness of either village in terms of size of population. According to the 1971 census [Census of India, 1971] the average pop— Iflation for a village in Thanjavur District was 1,603. With Population of 967 and 1,297 for Karuppur and Marudanallur, respectively, it would appear they are below the average. But while in the District, it was found that many of the 'bensus" villages were actually a composite of two or three SOHO-ECONOMIC HOUSEHOLDS Tillage, Caste mappura Traiuin Ton-Brahmin Tarijan Total lhadanallurb ahnin Ton-Bralmin Tarijan Total Both villages Brahnin Ton-Brahmin Tarijan Total 69 “.— aThe agricultur 84 percent of total populati b The agricultur sents 82 perce 0f the total p c ' I figures in par la agricultura me“: Which in to: Mines of Klmppur “Film 0 r Mange 0f 3, Were def' in“lti 1““ by #414 29 TABLE 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, 1971. Vfllage, Caste Owner- Owner Landless Total Operator Tenant Tenant Laborer No. % KarUppura Brahmin 12 12 7 Non—Brahmin 14 1 13 48 76 47 Harijan u e .7; 2.7. .19. .29 Total 37 c 5 15 105 62 100 (23) (3) ( 9) (65) Maradanallurb Brahmin 7 l 8 3 Non-Brahmin 24 16 24 49 113 47 Harijan _1_ a; L4. _9.3_ .119 32 Total 32 29 38 142 241 100 (13) (12) (16) (59) Both villages Brahmin 19 1 20 5 Non-Brahmin 38 17 37 97 189 47 Harijan 12 £6. J_._6_ l_SQ_ £21 48 Total 6‘9‘ 34 53 247 4 3 '1‘0‘6' (l7) ( 8) (13) (61) aThe agricultural population of Karuppur represents 84 percent of the households and 85 percent of the total population (967). bThe agricultural population of Marudanallur repre— sents 82 percent of the households and 82 percent of the total population (1,297). cFigures in parentheses indicate percent of households in agricultural population hmMets, which in terms of their sociological and economic fixucture were separable entities. Thus, it is believed the \dllages of Karuppur and Marudanallur probably are in the pomflation range of what the average size village would be if any were defined by socio-economic entities instead of administrative units. Over 60 percent surveyed villages wer quite closely with th shoved 59 percent of less laborers [Census larger number of land onpared to 59 percen transfer of land fro Although this transf conversations with 1 place in Karuppur th Table 3.2 show of total operated ar Structural outline, if the land. With 7 Thrappur, they ope Tenant of it being c "Tile for relatives hudanallur, the Bra TTSeholdsmperate 4: \-—-——.— 13 .. Transfer of I mingethedyears 1951 ~ 9&1” ing rote< 22%“ 0f Tim 1 NW land were hot on“ made it ill! let soften done h 183““ Share at he” emuREIdtiVe 80f dis; 30 Over 60 percent of the agricultural households in the surveyed villages were landless laborers. This compares quite closely with the 1971 census for the District which showed 59 percent of the workers in the District were land- less laborers [Census of India, 1971] . The reason for the larger number of landless laborers in Karuppur (65 percent compared to 59 percent for Marudanallur) may be due to a transfer of land from tenants to owners during 1958-60. Although this transfer took place throughout the District, conversations with laborers indicated more transfers took place in Karuppur than Marudanallur.l3 Table 3.2 shows the sources of land and the distribution of total operated area by caste. Consistent with the earlier structural outline, the Brahmins control a large proportion of the land. With 7 percent of the agricultural population in Karappur, they operate 81 percent of the land, with 88 percent of it being owned and the remainder is land they manage for relatives who own land in the village. In Marudanallur, the Brahmins, who represent 3 percent of the households,operate 42 percent of the land. 13Transfer of land from tenants to owners happened during the years 1958—60 with the enactment of legislative laws regarding protection of tenants and fair rent. (See Government of Tamil Nadu, 1971.) The reasons for the take— over of land were both legal and economic. The legislative measures made it illegal to evict tenants indiscriminantly which was often done in the past. And because the laws fixed the tenants share at 60 percent, the owners of the land found it less remunerative to lease the land to tenants. Further— more, a spate of disputes arose between the owners and tenants In some areas. The result was a mass takeover of land by the owners. :15: [I ~ ‘6‘“... Q 1’2 w .- ‘1 .;, r uh“ ‘- $.- .. h.‘ in tea. . a" TABLE 3.2 TOTAL LAND AREA OWNED AND OPERATED IN SURVEY VILLAGES ACCORDING TO GENERAL CASTE CATEGORIES, 1970-71. Village, Caste Owned Rented Managed Rented In Total @erated Out Area Percent --flkxes~—_-- Karuppur [ kahnin 328.33 1.83 48.33 374.83 80 Non—Brahnin 15 . 01 30 . 05 45 . O6 10 Harijan 32.29 12.83 45.12 10 Total 37533" L83 48.33 42.88 48575]? 1'88 Mamdanallur Brahnin 192.83 25.92 46.00 7.50 220.41 42 Non-Brahmin 122. 42 l . 00 111 . 57 232 . 99 44 Harijan 15.79 55.80 71.59 14 Total 331784 28782” 46.60 174787 524799 180' Both villages Brahnin 521. 16 27 . 75 94 . 33 7 . 50 595. 24 60 Non-Bral'min 137 . 43 l . 00 141 . 62 278 . 05 28 Harijan 48 . 08 68 . 63 116 . 71 12 Total 706.67 28.75 94.33 217.75 990.00 I'D-0 The non—Brahmins, who are traditionally cultivators or tenants Operate only 10 percent of the land (about one-third owned) with 47 percent of the agricultural households in Karuppur--reflecting the apparent takeover of land by owners in the village . The non-Brahmins in Marudanallur operate 44 percent of the land with 47 percent of the agricultural households . This represents somewhat of a departure from the original socio-economic structure, particularly in view of the fact that 52 percent of their operational holdings are owned . land in the village during an earlier period. This may be ude to departure of Brahmins who owned The size distr' audlaruppur taken i relatively closely w' indicated by Table 3. iii farms is identic than 10 acre groups groups . SIZE DISTRIBUT COMPARED T F0 Tan Size Distribution leisure m...— Simpled Villages: la LTD-P. (62-63)a has, (1951)b M’ aSource, Inten; (1965) . 1) Source, Censu The average Br in either the mm ii coverage Brahma 32 The size distribution of the farms in Marudanallur and Karuppur taken individually or collectively compare relatively closely with other District—wide measures as indicated by Table 3.3. The I.A.D.P. District sample of 114 farms is identical for the below 2.5 acre and greater than 10 acre groups and a small variance for the other two groups. TABLE 3.3 SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES COMPARED TO SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASURES FOR THANJAVUR DISTRICT Farm Size Below Distribution 2.5 2.5 - 5.0 5.0 — 10.0 10.0+ Twasure Acres Acres Acres Acres Percent ———————————————— Sampled Villages: Karuppur 54 24 8 l4 Marudanallur 43 33 15 9 Both 47 30 12 ll I.A.D.P. (62-63)a 47 33 9 11 Census, (1961)b so 26 16 8 aSource, Intensive Agricultural District Programme (1965). bSource, Census of India (1965). The average Brahmin operates a far greater area of land thmieither the non-Brahmin or Harijan groups (see Table 3.4). The average Brahmin operates nearly 10 times the area operated kw a non-Brahmin and over 11 times the area operated by the average Harijan. Ar Marudanallur,l4 the) land supplemented by longer live in the \ AVERAGE NE'. OPERATOR I ACCO] CL} \ \- Village, Caste \m KaruPllllr : Brahmin N°“‘Brahmin Harijan Total Marudanallur: rahrain N”Brahmin larijan Total Beth Vill Brahminages ‘ Newra . Harijemhmn Total 33 average Harijan. And with the exception of one Brahmin in 14 they were all owner-operators with owned Marudanallur , land supplemented by land they manage for relatives who no longer live in the villages. TABLE 3 . 4 AVERAGE NET OPERATED LAND AREA PER FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, ACCORDING TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION, 1970-71 Village, Caste Owner-operator Owner-tenant Tenant Total ------------------- Acres---------——-------- Karuppur: Brahmin 31.24 31.24 Non-Brahmin 1.00 1.83 2.25 1.61 Harijan 2.44 3.53 2.05 2.65 Total I114 3.19 2.22 . Marudanallur : Brahmin 30.24 8.75 27.55 Non-Brahmin 4 .01 3.66 3.26 3.64 Harijan 2.00 3.56 1.92 2.65 Total 9.69 3.79 2.77 . Both Villages: Brahmin 30.87 8.75 29.76 Non-Brahmin 2.90 3.55 2.90 3.02 Harijan 2.41 3.55 1.94 2.65 Total I675? 3' .76 2".‘61' . Sampling Procedures Since the number of farm operator households was within the range desired for the study, an attempt was made to survey 14Even in this case, there was some question about the tenural status of this farmer. He came to the village about 15 years ago to manage land for a friend. He later bought some land and supposedly is operating the rest under a "lease" arrangement. all farm operators. respond, another 9 w 30 percent sample wa labor households to ll the 43 labor hous vseable, and 27 of t vere useable.16 Th6 included in the surv 5 Too major surv laborers) were admir the assistance of so dust and November 7 hodr .The Staff 0 neighizl. ““8 in T1 in sniffing Districj Elmer a: Su§veys w. 8th enume: vi memes ligge) - . em910M to m T611111. 34 all farm operators. Although only 2 farmers refused to respond, another 9 were later dropped before analysis.15 A 30 percent sample was drawn randomly from the agricultural labor households to insure of at least a 25 percent sample. Of the 43 labor households drawn in Marudanallur, 42 were useable, and 27 of the 31 labor households drawn in Karuppur were useable.l6 The resultant distribution of households included in the survey are indicated in Table 3.5. Survey Procedures Two major surveys (one for farm operators and one for laborers) were administered in Karuppur and Marudanallur with the assistance of seven enumeratorsl7 between the middle of August and November, 1971 to determine changes in income and 15Out of the original 156 farm operators ll were dropped for the following reasons: refusal (2) , not able to contact (1), age--too young to be employed during reference period (2) , no paddy land--only small area of dryland (2) , not in agricul- ture during reference period (2) , rented out all land (1) , and farm operator died (2) . 160:" the 5 labor households dropped, 1 laborer died, 2 had no agricultural labor and 2 were too young to be employed during the reference period. 17The staff consisted of four local enumerators (three had residences in Thanjavur District and one resided in a neighboring District) who had at least two years experience in taking surveys working with the Agro—Economic Research Center in Madras. Two Peace Corps volunteers acted as super—- visors to the enumerators (one supervisor and two enumerators in each village) . In addition, a recent Ph.D. in agricultural economics from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University was later employed to work on special problems as well as assist with the enumeration. AGRICULTURAL SURVEY SOCIO-l Village, Caste 0v Karuppur: Brahmin loo-Brahmin larijan Total Marudanallur : lralmin Non-Brahmin darijan Total lath Villages: Brahmin don-Brahmin Harijan llotal enlllovvvent which too 1965-66 and 1970-71 duction of ADT-27 *— 3.6.1965-66 was ch The labor sur llerator survey eXC data. Although a l lllered to 11 landl “Mots paid a fixe lids. And this on lltveen196S-66 and 35 TABLE 3.5 AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE IN SURVEY VILLAGES, ACCORDING TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION Village , Caste Owner— Owner Landless Operator Tenant Tenant Laborer Karuppur: Brahmin ll Non—Brahmin 11 l l 2 l 0 Harijan 9 i _2_ 17 Total if 5 14 Ti Marud anal lur : Brahmin 6 l Now-Brahmin 2 4 15 2 3 l3 Harijan l 13 Q 22 Total fi 28 3 6 4 2 Both Villages: Brahmin 17 l Non-Brahmin 35 16 35 23 Hari j an 1 0 pg 1_5_ g Total '67 3 3 5 0 6 9 employment which took place between the crop seasons of 1965—66 and 1970—71. Since most (87 percent) of the intro- duction of ADT—27 took place after l965—66 as shown in Table 3.6, 1965—66 was chosen as the base year of comparison. The labor survey gathered similar information on the operator survey except for the collectionof crop production data. Although a landlord survey was constructed and admin- istered to 11 landlords, it was not analyzed because all tenants paid a fixed quantity of paddy per acre to the land- lords. And this quantity did not change, with one exception, between 1965-66 and 1970—71. An abbreviated format for the DISTRIBUT‘ on sn *— lear KaruPP roar-vs 4 loos-so 9 use-n 19 1967-68 2 1968-69 7 1969-70 1970-71 ___3. 44 aThe reason adopters an some farms only single survey schedules is The data 0011 villages was judged were initially 0°“ dent's information these fears were a was being conduc to States with 110 f0 collection agencY- previous experienc This experience 81 protesting of the novel effective 1 36 TABLE 3.6 DISTRIBUTION OF YEAR OF ADOPTION OF ADT-27 ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES. Year Karuppur Marudanallur Total 1964—65 4 l 5 1965—66 9 4 13 1966-67 19 19 38 1967-68 2 37 39 1968—69 7 27 34 1969-70 2 2 1970—71 3 _l_ A 71‘4— 91 3551 61The reason for the difference between total number of adoptors and number of farms in the survey is that some farms (6 in Karuppur and 4 in Marudanallur) had only single—crop, Samba, paddy land. survey schedules is given in Appendix D. The data collected from the surveys taken in the two villages was judged to be quite reliable. While some farmers were initially concerned about whether the individual respon- dent's information would be used by government officials, these fears were allayed when they were told the research was being conducted by a university student from the United States with no formal connection with any Indian revenue collection agency. Also,the enumerators employed all had previous experience with survey work in Thanjavur District. This experience along with a week of training including pretesting of the questionnaire provided a staff which proved effective in collecting accurate information. With the excey above by some fennel cooperative in the o in the questionnair: internal checks for found after initial inquiry. In any survey luusing recall for lilo-71 data was be data. Since it wa the earlier period, Too often asked in the adoption of the the farmers to resp Probably represents Particular year bet The use of the yea for ease of refere 37 With the exception of the initial apprehension indicated above by some farmers, the respondents were generally very cooperative in the effort to report the particulars requested in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed with internal checks for consistency. Where inconsistencies were found after initial editing, they were clarified by further inquiry. In any survey of this type, there are inherent problems in using recall for an earlier period. In this regard, the 1970-71 data was believed to be more accurate than the 1965-66 data. Since it was more difficult to recall information for the earlier period, the information requested for 1965—66 was often asked in terms of what the conditions were before the adoption of the new rice variety. This technique allowed the farmers to respond much easier. Thus, the 1965-66 data probably represents more of an “average" year rather than a particular year before the introduction of the new variety. The use of the year 1965-66 in the discussion is retained for ease of reference purposes. The purpose to the changes in tion among the fa data used for this inli'll in the two With respect to provide informal (1) How did the dis land change among 1 in paddy productior changes in net area introduction of th 0f production chain levels of compleme effect did the qua 0f production and The farm ope firm size, and gen Truss-tabulation a “paddy area, pro CHAPTER IV ECONOMIC BACKGROUND TO CHANGES IN INCOME FROM PADDY PRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to provide a background to the changes in distribution of income from paddy produc- tion among the farm operators in the survey villages. The data used for this analysis were derived from surveys taken in 1971 in the two selected villages in Thanjavur District. With respect to this chapter, the surveys were designed to provide information to answer the following questions: (1) How did the distribution of ownership and control of land change among farm operators? (2) What was the change hlpaddy production and how much of this change was due to changes in net area, change in cropping pattern, or the introduction of the new technology? (3) How did the costs of production change? Being more responsive to higher levels of complementary inputs such as fertilizer, what effect did the quantity and price of inputs have on the cost of production and resulting income from each paddy crop? The farm operators are first classified by tenure, farm size, and general caste categories. By means of cross~tabulation according to these classifications, changes i“Paddy area, production and costs of production for the different groups 0 periods before and rice varieties . I The 145 farm classified accordi crop season with o classified by tenu categories were th with the addition presence of some v loosely described a acres), medium (5.4 veryiarge(20.01+ a category divided b} 19 iniable 4.1. T 18lill farmer aDialysis if they 0 he exception to t no to their 1970- 0f land in 1965s“ 39 different groups of farm operators are compared for the periods before and after the introduction of high yielding rice varieties. In addition, regression analysis is used to explain variation in the price received for paddy. Classification of Farm Qperators The 145 farm operators used in the analysis were classified according to their position during the 1970—71 18 crop season with one exception. All farm Operators were classified by tenure, farm size and caste. The farm size categories were the same as those presented in Chapter III with the addition of a 20+ acre category because of the presence of some very large farms. The categories could be loosely described as very small (0-2.5 acres), small (2.51-5 acres), medium (5.01—10 acres), large (10.01-20 acres), and very large (20.01+ acres). The number of farmers in each category divided by tenure, farm size, and caste is shown 19 in Table 4.1. The distribution of farm operators by this 18All farmers were included in the farm operator analysis if they operated land in either 1970—71 or 1965-66. The exception to the classification of farm operators accord- ing to their 1970—71 position was a farmer with 1.10 acres of land in 1965-66 but had no land in 1970-71. 19All presentation of results of the study will be for both villages combined except where differences were expected, Although there were differences between villages in the pro- Portion of farm Operators in each category which were dis- cussed in Chapter III, it was believed the aggregation of the two villages was more representative--as well as a saving 0“- Space in presentation of results. A+H0.0NV AONIHO.OHV «OHIHO.mV «mlflm.Nv «m.N|O» HMDOB wmhflfl NH®> mmhflfl ESHUGZ HHMEW HHMEW NHflb TUWMU \THDCQH o HFIOFQH smammo QZAN EDZMHB \MNHm EMMANLH Hm mmwANIHQHKV NMHNVNHDW ZH mmOrH-émndo ENHANLH. mqmim ho ZOHHDmHmHmHQ IHIIV figment.“ 4O ‘11,, |iJ I’ll! .mwcmmma Eon“ momcmno mucowocw mflmoaucoumm CH mmusoam I/llll‘l' o o A~+vaaa m A m A ov Havm AH+VHH Aalvmv Am+vmm Hmuoe m+com Assam a AH+V- Assess confines ma m Aa+vo Amuvnm Av+vom definmumncoz m a m Gwancum mfiumm Ham mo nausea m imuvmm Amuvam Hmuoe Avavmm A Aa+vm Amlvm canwumm Hus m lmucma Assess ansamnmucoz panama i~+vmm we N am Am+voa Hopes A AA m ccflwumm m+vma H H OH A~+om unassumncoz a cfifinmnm camcounnmczo im+amm m w ia+vs m As+cmm Hmnos Aa+voa H m Aa+vm ccnwnmm Aa+vmm m la+vm N mim+cnm aflsnmumucoz ma m m m m swenmum uounuommcuoc3o A+Ho.omv Aomuao.oav Aoauao.mv Amnam.~v Am.mlov Hmuoa omncq muo> momma Edwooz HHmEm Hacam >Ho> mummo .oussoa .Hsuosma .memcu ozc mmszms .mNHm smcm Mm mmccqu> wm>mam zH mmoeammmo sacs mqmssm so onsomHmemHo H. v magma classification syst large land holdings lrahnin farm operat and Harijans operat two-thirds of them There was a n con-Brahmin between Table 4.1. Of the between socio-econo their socio-economi either increased t their tenure posit' adepreciation in periods, moving fr laborer. There was ver lPerched between 15 area decreased by < increased net operl mndrahmins showet W 20The term "1 land area while "93 be net acre of 1a: the one acre of la 41 classification system indicates the Brahmins tend to have large land holdings, and with one exception, all of the Brahmin farm operators own their own land. The non—Brahmins and Harijans operate mostly small landholdings, and over two-thirds of them rent part or all of their land. There was a net gain of two farm operators who were non—Brahmin between 1965—66 and 1970—71 as indicated in Table 4.1. Of the ten households which exhibited change between socio—economic categories, all but one improved their socio-economic position (See Figure 4.1). They either increased their acreage classification (5) or improved their tenure position (4) or both (3). Only one farmer had a depreciation in socio—economic position between the two periods, moving from a very small tenant to a landless laborer. Change in Paddy Area Net Area There was very little change in the net paddy area operated between 1965—66 and 1970—71. Total net operated area decreased by only 1 percent.20 Harijans as a group increased net operated area by 5.51 acres (plus 5 percent) while non-Brahmins showed a decrease of 9.02 acres (minus 4 percent), 20The term "net" area is used to indicate physical land area while "gross" area indicates total cropped area. One net acre of land would be 1.9 acres in gross area if the one acre of land was double-cropped. i GHEMHMIGOZ SHEMHQ . _ P ALIHOIONV AoNIHOnOHv AOHIHOImv AW‘HMINV Am-NIOV «Ow “mug kflrfl0> _ ”Wanna _ adv“: . .Hfifléim _ HHUlem xnuflakv ~ ”Moan.“ _ Auuholflv ”“1”“ 5““ ~ -pnflhv soulco-fl 42 .Hsrosmn can mwrmmma smashes mmfluomoomo oNHm Show Ho dunno» cH Ummccao ens womMHHH> >o>u5m as muowmummo EHMMII.H.v ondmflm conflucm _ i _ ‘ GHESMHmIcoz «M1 \‘m Hononmq mmoapccq n _ i QILII. .« TF a r _ _ r _ t \ \ _ - \ cflfizcum coz _ _ _ // # _ \ \ _ III #Gmcmfi \ M % ///// H l// %///r I\ ~\ \\ I_ newness _ a ///// /// J. \ % K H cflencumrcoz _ _ d////////, fi///, \\ ~ _ cflESMHm ucmcouluoczo _ _ _ / * \~ _ smnanmm _ _ O T + Min“. 1' *‘4 _ CaEflmnw . coz fl _ a A 4 _ . Gaancnm i I i _ i i o . mulmmmmmHmmmmm _ i _ i _ I A+Ho.omv AONIHO.OHV ”CHI IHo.mv Aml IHm.NV Am.mlov on omnma mum> _ mound _ Efiapwz _ HHmEm i HHmEm Mum> h mmwapsmq _ Ammuu HMHOB ”GTOHOW Uflouumm M 0 UGUUHflm ’ dunno . snow sthOhmH ”a.” WWIIMWMIH omBWANU Nm ~WMHMVEHH> HWKVmDm ZH “moagfimo a4.” mung“ “o.“ (g Mag“ Quagmmo “Hafiz .IHANHOH. N I V ”Thanh. monom 00.05 USN HhIOBmH CH mmuom mm.Hm .ccca commune moooaoch .omrmmma ca IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII o . r . fit fl s.o+ mqwn m.H+ manoar ma.mau mo.m+ o m+ fiance s.o- s.mr M.NH Hm.m+ om.o Hm.s+ o o qaflnnmm o o m No.mr mm.omr om.HH+ H+ N+ aesnanmraoz am or o am.wr HI 0 caescum Herosma a omrmmma o.ooa coozuon omccsu IJIII m.H . . m.HH mamm mamw m~.Hom «H.5ma sn.aos OOH «an Hmuoa a.o~ s.~m m.sa an.soa so.so NH.ms mm as schemes s so m.a s.mm mm.wmm mmumma om.~HH ow om cessanmrcoz m a mum mam NH ma ansnaum o.ooa m m Harosma IJIII lhlm . . N.HH H.~m mam» as.aam ow.mam Ha.mmo con man Hmuoe H.n~ H.mm m.oa mm.aoa nanmo Hm.mm mm ow cmnaumm n aw m.a s.mm oo.svm mm mvH vH.Hoa mm am cafinmnnwcoz a mom om.s www.mmm ma ma . cassanm . coda moumoaa ®WMHHH Uwucmm UQCBO w Illlllllillllll mo.wswwwww usuouom unmouom H #08 pouaom pocso w Honesz MQH< EMMOWMHGQO mflmMU a HMO? Honfinz Illunnnunnnnnnu .Hsro zH wmoeammww mmmmmmmmmma .memcu wm .mmocqu> wm>mom mscm mom mama woman omecmmao emz asses N. v Waugh. GROUPS OF Households Top 20 per Second 20 Third 20 p Fourth 20 Bottom 20 Gini Ratio aThe Gini between t represent under the Gini rati measuring computing see Morga PATTERN 0F AMONG SAM VILLAGES : HOUSE}! Households Top 20 per Second 20 Third 20 1 Fourth 20 Bottom 20 Gini Ratio 45 TABLE 4.3 PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION OF OWNED PADDY LAND AMONG SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES: SHARES OF ORDINAL GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Households 1965—66 1970-71 Top 20 percent 92.1% 91.2% Second 20 percent 5.7% 5.9% Third 20 percent 2.2% 2.5% Fourth 20 percent 0.0% 0.3% Bottom 20 percent 0.0% 0.0% Gini Ratioa 0.859 0.848 aThe Gini ratio is the ratio of the area , between the Lorenz curve and the diagonal, representing equality, to the total area under the diagonal. The limits for the Gini ratio are zero and one. A Gini ratio of zero would indicate perfect equality while a Gini ratio of one would indicate all of the income goes to one household. For a discussion of the use of the Qini ratio for measuring income inequality as well as the computing equations for the Gini ratio, see Morgan [1962]. TABLE 4.4 PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION OF NET OPERATED AREA AMONG SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES: SHARES OF ORDINAL GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Households 1965—66 1970-71 Top 20 percent 73.8% 73.3% Second 20 percent 11.8% 12.4% Third 20 percent 8.4% 8.4% Fourth 20 percent 4.2% 4.1% Bottom 20 percent 1.8% 1.8% Gini Ratio 0.682 0.680 operated area than TheGini ratio is land to 0.68 for n being able to rent the top 20 percent total operated are ofdpercent of th by the top 20 perc total net operated Although the land remained rela there were minor c control of land. larijans did impro total net operated larijans and non-B second period. In npn-hrahrnin and Ha their tenure posit Gross area :i particular piece the case of paddy Wkly area can be is Changed from a Pattern. (About I 46 operated area than owned paddy land among all farm operators. The Gini ratio is reduced from about 0.85 for owned paddy land to 0.68 for net operated paddy area. By virtue Of being able to rent paddy land, all ordinal groups except the tOp 20 percent were able to increase their share Of total Operated area with the bottom 40 percent getting control of 6 percent Of the total area. The share Of land Operated by the top 20 percent was reduced to less than 74 percent Of total net Operated paddy area. Although the general measures for distribution of land remained relatively constant between the two periods, there were minor changes towards more equal ownership and control Of land. Taken as a group, the non-Brahmins and Harijans did improve their socio—economic position. While total net operated area declined for non-Brahmins, both Harijans and non-Brahmins owned slightly more land in the second period. In addition, seven Of the total group Of non-Brahmin and Harijan farm Operators (out of 127) improved their tenure posi tion . Gross Area Gross area is the total area Of crops grown on a particular piece Of land within a period of one year. In the case Of paddy production in Thanjavur District, gross Enddy area can be expanded by a factor Of 0.9 if land use :hschanged from a single paddy crop to double-crOpping pattern. (About 10 percent Of the Kuruvai land area is retained for nurse may be contracted cropped land is re shows the total ar years being consi As indicate traditionally had All of the land i The single cropp the village was 1 percent of the la was double—croppe asa result of on Samba of 45 acres Kuruvai-Thaladi c double-cropping a! increase in net a: noes paddy area < During the : area increased fr‘ by farmers in Kar1 area from increas decrease in net 8: gross paddy area \.._.__..__—-—— 21'l‘he reaso Hopped was becau 47 retained for nursery for the Thaladi crop.) Or gross area may be contracted by a factor of 0.47 (0.9 e 1.9) if double— cropped land is reverted to single-cropped land. Table 4.5 shows the total area for each of the paddy crops for the two years being considered along with the source of change in area. As indicated earlier, Marudanallur was an area which traditionally had a high percentage of double—cropped land. All of the land in Marudanallur was, in fact, double cropped. The single cropped (Samba) land operated by households in the Village was located in nearby villages. In 1965—66, 79 percent of the land operated by households in Marudanallur was double-cropped. This was reduced to 75 percent in 1970-71 as a result of one large farmer who reverted 20 acres to Samba of 45 acres he had previously cultivated in the 21 This reduction in Kuruvai—Thaladi cropping pattern. double—cropping area along with a minor (1.2 percent) increase in net area brought about a 1 percent decrease in mxms paddy area operated by farmers in Marudanallur. During the same period of time, double-cropped paddy area increased from 52 to 71 percent for the area operated by farmers in Karuppur. The 9.7 percent increase in gross area from increased double—cropping combined with a 2 percent decrease in net area resulted in a 7.7 percent increase in gross paddy area for Karuppur. 21The reason he gave for reducing the area double— Cropped was because of problems in securing labor. I. if kl.-'l\ I'lrllll We. IO‘ nth! :t‘g Nb . . .- . + “smog 86+ 86+ 8.3- 81$ 8.8- 86- 3.8+ 84c.- wea+ 8 8+ 8 mm 8M.“ 2.3+ 3.91%.?- 34185? 8.8- 8.8+ 098- :8? 8.9.: cm $- 2 8%me v u .I o “g 8.0.. 84+ $4..- wmé+ 84+ 84+ 0 84+ wo.m- mm ~+ Km mm .T a o o .I t + 8.? 8.3+ 8.8- 88+ 35+ 86+ 0 3.1 8 NT 3m+ cm 8. :8 Suumza u “0% o c a “g 8.8+ 38+ .318- $d+ 84- .84.- 8.8+ 8.7 88+ 8 8+ 8 NT 3 8+ 8.2+ mm.mm+ 22$- mo4m+ $6- 8.3- 88+ 3.2-$.31 8.8+ 8.8- 26? g .8 a a 4 8.33 3.30 8.3.8 2.8m 8.8m 3.3m 85: 8.8+” 8.8... 3.08. 3. 8H 8 88 2:82 8.83 8.08 3.5 8.03 8.08 2.3% 8.2.. 8.8m 84$ $.88 8.88 86.8 mat-momluc _ mun“... 3883a. gangs a38_€masfl anemia; §_§E_ Beam—4935M i mommaflg 50m Hag-mam; E Eggaagggé mgwamgsgvfighoggggmé m.v a Table 4.6 s for each crop div' and 1965-66. As little change in Although it would slve cropping pat discussed, it was generally, to gro linost of the 1a where only one cr owned land in near cropping. In total, t lnd, although no divide farm oper between general c 0f the very wide one per farm has either non-Brahmi 99295 Total padd} liven in Table 4- for both village: 1965-66 to 2,137 is indicated in ' Karuppur increas- 49 Table 4.6 shows the average operated area per farmer for each crop divided by tenure and farm size for 1970—71 and 1965-66. As can be seen by this table, there was very little change in operated area between the two periods. Although it would appear that large farms have a less inten— sive cropping pattern, except for the one farmer already discussed, it was not known if this is a conscious decision, generally, to grow only one crop where two are possible or if most of the land growing single crop paddy is in areas where only one crop can be grown. Many of the large farmers owned land in nearby villages where there was less double— cropping. In total, the shifts in area operated were not major. And, although most of the tables presented in this chapter divide farm operators by tenure and farm size, the differences between general caste categories could be inferred because of the very wide differences in area operated. The Brahmins on a per farm basis operate nearly 10 times as much as either non-Brahmins or Harijans as shown in Table 4.7 below. Change in Quantity of Production Total paddy production by crop for each village is given in Table 4.8 for 1970—71 and 1965—66. Total production for both villages, combined, increased from 1,756 tons in 1965—66 to 2,137 tons in 1970—71 for a 22 percent increase. As indicated in the previous section (see Table 4.5), Karuppur increased double-cropped area by about 33 percent let area Gross area Cropping intensityc fluent lnruvai Saba Gross area Cropping intensityc 1910-71 diner-operator Kuruvai maladi Net area Gross area c Cropping intensity Omar-tenant mm Saba Mahdi Net area use area Cropping intensity: fluent Anni Swa- llet area Gross area Rapping intensity“ “Maker of farm a h The average are; one tamer rent- CCropping intens: 50 TABLE 4.6 AVERAGE OPERATED AREA IN EACH PADDY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY FARM SIZE AND TENURE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Tenure, Crop ‘F Farm Size (Acres) Very Small Small Médium Large Very Large (972.5) (2.51-5) (5.01-10) (10.01-20) (20.01+) Acre; 1965-66 Owner-operator (35)a (5) (7) (6) (9) Kuruvai .70 3.42 4.22 8.48 25.42 Samba .49 0 1.69 4.44 25.54 Thaladi .78 3.80 4.69 9.42 28.25 Net area . 3.80 . . . Gross area 1.97 7.22 10.60 22.34 79.21 Cropping intensityc 1.55 1.90 1.66 1.61 1.47 Owner-tenant (10) (21) (2) Kuruvai 1.64 2.75 7.54 Samba o .50 0 Thaladi 1.82 3.06 8.38 Net area . . . Gross area 3.46 6.31 15.92 Cropping intensityc 1.90 1.77 1.90 Tenant (25) (23) (2) Kuruvai .97 2.65 7.50 Samba .33 .31 0 Thaladi 1.07 2.94 8.33 Net area . 1.40 3.25 8.33 Gross area 2.37 5.90 15.83 Crapping intensityc 1.69 1.82 1.90 1970-71 Owner-operator (35) (S) (7) (6) (9) Kuruvai .66 3.60 5.44 10.18 28.74 Samba .15 0 1.12 2.72 21.08 Thaladi .73 4.20 6.19 11.30 31.93 Net area . . . . . Gross area 1.54 7.80 12.75 24.20 81.75 Cropping intensityc 1.75 1.86 1.74 1.73 1.54 Owner-tenant (10) (21) (2) Kuruvai 1.42 2.94 7.54 Samba 0 .42 0 Thaladi 1.58 3.28 8.38 Net area . 3.75 . Gross area 3.00 6.64 15.92 Cropping intensityc 1.90 1.79 1.90 Tenant (25) (23) (2) Kuruvai .93 2.75 7.50 Samba .29 .28 0 Thaladi 1.04 3.06 8.33 Net area 1.33 3.31 . Gross area 2.26 6.09 15.83 Cropping intensityc 1.70 1.82 1.90 8Number of farm operators in each group. The average area for this group is much higher relatively than 1970-71 because one farmer rented in 14 acres in 1965-66. cCropping intensity - gross area a net area. 1mm: 0mm VILLAGES, Caste Brahmin Hon-Brahmin Harijan TOTAL PADDY 0N SAMPLE 1965-66: Karuppur Marudanallur 50th villages mo-nz Karuppur lhmdanallur 30th villages Percentage change Karuppur Marud nallur Both villages \w— 51 TABLE 4.7 AVERAGE OPERATED AREA ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY CASTE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. 1965-66 1970—71 Caste Total Area Total Area Net T Gross Net T Gross Acres Brahmin 31.27 46.01 30.89 47.91 Non-Brahmin 2.88 5.18 2.77 5.11 Harijan 2.48 4.35 2.62 4.66 TABLE 4.8 TOTAL PADDY PRODUCTION FOR EACH PADDY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS IN EACH SURVEY VILLAGE, 1965-66 AND 1970—71. Kuruvai Samba Thaladi \ Total T s' 3 1965—66: on Karuppur 288.5 275.3 198.5 762.3 Marudanallur 471.1 121.0 401.6 993.7 Both villages 759.6 396. 600.2 1756.0 1970—71: Karuppur 490.9 164.9 352.7 1008.4 Marudanallur 538.5 161.9 428.3 1128.6 Both villages 1929.3 326.8 780.9 2137 .0 Percentage change: Karuppur +70% —40% +78% +32% Marud nallur +14% +34% + 7% +14% Both villages +36% -l§% +35% +22% Thus, total produ [32 percent) comp The sources crop for both vil 21.7 percent incr of changes in net area (+10%), and theKuruvai crop of a 26.0 percent of the change in cropped area (+8. While total decrease in net a due to increased had a 4.9 percent Md although the benefit of new hi boosted 20.2 perc At least pa Paddy production Mable 4.10. A Kumvazi area chan one of the high y thereof. Over th ““611 is consider 52 while Marudanallur decreased double—cropped area by 4 percent. Thus, total production increased considerably more in Karuppur (32 percent) compared to Marudanallur (14 percent). The sources of change in total paddy production for each crop for both villages, combined, is shown in Table 4.9. The 21.7 percent increase in total paddy production is the sum of changes in net area (-0.2%), changes in double-cropped area (+3.0%), and changes in yields (+18.9%). As was expected, the Kuruvai crop had the largest increase in production because of a 26.0 percent yield increase after deducting the effects of the change in net area (+1.3%) and change in double cropped area (+8.2%). While total Samba production decreased because of a decrease in net area (-6.6%) and a decrease in area ("15.8%) due to increased double cropping, increases in Samba yields had a 4.9 percent positive affect on total Samba production. And although the Thaladi paddy production did not have the benefit of new high—yielding varieties, production was boosted 20.2 percent due to yield increases in this crop. At least part of the reason for the expanded Thaladi paddy production because of yield increases can be explained by Table 4.10. As is evident by this table, all of the Kuruvai area changed from a local (traditional) variety to one of the high yielding varieties or some combination thereof. Over the same period of time the use of CO—ZS, which is considered to be a high yielding variety with SOURCE OF CHANGE PADDY CROP BETWI F1 Source Change in net are Change in double cropped area Change in yield Total change lower yield poten to 95 percent of increased Thaladi will be explored The average liven in Tables 4 table, Kuruvai pal Percent while Sam Thaladi by 19 per ”is traditionally than Thaladi, the \____ 22 The reasc “8 1n yields Mimi 19 6 ohm 1910.71. ” area ur “a E" 53 TABLE 4.9 SOURCE OF CHANGE IN TOTAL PADDY PRODUCTION FOR EACH PADDY CROP BETWEEN 1965—66 AND 1970-71 ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES. Source Kuruvai Samba I Thaladi Total Change in net area + 1.3% — 6.6% + 1.7% — 0.2% Change in double cropped area + 8.2% —15.8% + 8.2% + 3.0% Change in yield +26.0% + 4.9% +20.2% +18.9% Total change +35.5% ~17.5% +30.1% +21.7% lower yield potential than ADT—27, increased from 58 percent to 95 percent of the Thaladi area. Other reasons for the increased Thaladi production such as increased input use will be explored later in this chapter. The average yield of paddy per acre for each crop is given in Tables 4.11 and 4.12. As can be seen on either table, Kuruvai paddy yields increased on all farms by 24 percent while Samba yields increased by 6 percent and Thaladi by 19 percent.22 Because the yield for Kuruvai has traditionally been higher than Samba and much higher than Thaladi, the relative change does not tell the whole 22The reason for the difference these percentage changes in yields and the change in total paddy production due to yield changes shown in Table 4.7 is because of the change in area under the paddy crops between 1965—66 and l970~7l. _ -I n w , amass 698m i g N EMMA? HFII Chan—u gm?mwmafl 3% Eu E g SEAgH:§v§%gEEEgRg§ umog Onfllva 54 988% sour pagoda/mp 35mm 03 3.08 03 E E E E E .obH. (TWWWM II 8.8 . OS mm.vm NV HH.va ha 0 O r-‘l ”’I mm ma.mmw mm mm.mwm mu Pb.ama hm Hm.0hm vm.hma m oo.oN Nb ha.vmv undo mound undo mound undo menus undo monuc pcoo momma ucwo mound moum Imam scum ammo ooum (Mom comm nuom Mona [Hum scum eumm ahlohma mmlmmma anachma mwlmmma antebma mwammma Hosanna 835mm hmmnfisam mleu chBmfinSo "mafipamfim swam 38.4.5 .thOhmH 024 mwlmwma .mmU¢QHH> mmsmsm ZH mzm¢m mam2¢m ZO mMHHMHmm> AquOHBHoflmBV A¢UQH QZ€ UZHQHNHN mUHm mMDZD mthU MDD¢N m0 mmmm OH.v mqmdfi AVERAGE YIELD 0N SAMPLE FA Crop Tenure Kuruvai : Omar-operator Caner-tenant Tenant All farms Samba: Owner-operator Omen-tenant Tenant All farms Thaladi: Owner-operator Owner-tenant Tenant All farms Elweighted b 55 TABLE 4.11 AVERAGE YIELD OF PADDY PER ACRE FOR EACH PADDY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY TENURE, 1965—66 AND 1970-71. Crop Tenure Average Yielda Change 1965—66 1970—71 Quantity Percent Pounds —————— Pounds——-—— Kuruvai: Owner-operator 2,964 3,679 +715 +24 Owner—tenant 2,551 2,985 +434 +17 Tenant 2,518 3,138 +620 +25 A11 farms 2,813 3,479 +666 +24 Samba: Owner—operator 2,564 2,738 +164 + 7 Owner-tenant 2,285 2,397 +112 + 5 Tenant 2,322 2,339 + 17 + 1 All farms 2,543 2,703 +160 + 6 Thaladi: Owner-operator 2,033 2,466 +433 +21 Owner-tenant 1,999 2,248 +249 +12 Tenant 1,887 2,091 +204 +11 All farms 2,000 2,368 +368 +13 aweighted by area. AVERAGE YIELD OE SAMPLE FARMS Crop-Farm Size Kuruvai: 56 TABLE 4.12 AVERAGE YIELD OF PADDY PER ACRE FOR EACH PADDY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY FARM SIZE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Crop—Farm Size Average Yielda Change 1965-66 1970-71 Quantity Percent Pounds ————— Pounds————-- Kuruvai: O-2.5 2,545 3,145 +600 +24 2.51-5.0 2,489 3,032 +543 +22 5.01~10.0 2,990 3,671 +681 +23 10.01-20.0 2,773 3,594 +821 +30 20.01+ 3,044 3,729 +685 +23 All farms 2,813 3,479 +666 +24 Samba: 0-2.5 2,275 2,454 +179 + 8 2.51-5.0 2,282 2,365 + 83 + 4 5.01—10.0 2,348 2,528 +180 + 8 10.01-20.0 2,439 2,910 +471 +19 20.01+ 2,615 2,736 +121 + 5 All farms 2,543 2,703 +160 + 6 Thaladi: 0—2.5 1,937 2,150 +213 +11 2.51-5.0 1,901 2,116 +215 +11 5.01—10.0 2,369 2,737 +368 +16 10.01—20.0 2,197 2,379 +182 + 8 20.01+ 1,938 2,459 +521 +27 All farms 2,000 2,368 +368 +18 aWeighted by area. story.23 In qua: more than four ti much as the Thala For all th: had the highest 3 Kuruvai paddy crc tenants. From a just as much ecor in the necessary more Profitable 1 fixed quantity (c did not Change be narqinal Value p1 would go entir e13 income initially. having a high ab: Paddy production The large a sistently higher and small farm 3; increases in Run 1123\ :IYigh The bash beeauher than $190811“ Se too: llhe 0 a: 24 We Sget Ada1111: tenur' ff 57 story.23 In quantity terms, the Kuruvai yield increase was more than four times more than Samba and nearly twice as much as the Thaladi yield increase per acre. For all three crops in both years, the owner—operators had the highest yields on the average. And except for the Kuruvai paddy_crop, owner—tenants had higher yields than tenants. From a theoretical standpoint, tenants would have just as much economic incentive as owner—operators to invest in the necessary inputs to make the high yielding varieties more profitable because their tenancy terms are based on a fixed quantity (of paddy) payment to the landlord-~which did not change between the two periods.24 Thus, the total marginal value product of any additional input expenditures would go entirely to the tenant assuming he had a positive income initially. This may be the reason for the tenants having a high absolute and relative increase in Kuruvai paddy production compared to the other two crops. The large and very large farm size groups had con- sistently higher yields for both years than the very small and small farm size groups. And although the relative increases in Kuruvai paddy yields are all about the same for 23The basic cause for the Kuruvai crop being tradition- ally higher than Samba and Samba in turn higher than Thaladi 18 because of better growing conditions, particularly higher eXposure to solar energy during its growing season. 24See Adams and Rask [1968] for a discussion of the effects of tenure on input use. all size groups e was higher for th very small farm 5 any consistent va for the Samba and To sum up, of paddy for all largest quantity relative increase hada slightly hi to farm size, the and relative incr levels for all th In order to he reported yiel asked to indicate vomal for the va lea: on his own 1 some variation in "d between years Motive proporti emPared to lower nmmm "“3: there was 197041. This ma Interns of a no: ""11 perfornavv 58 all size groups except the large group, the quantity increase was higher for the large and very large than the small and very small farm size groups. There does not appear to be any consistent variation in changes in yield by farm size for the Samba and Thaladi crops. To sum up, the owner—operators had the highest yields of paddy for all three crops, and they also showed the largest quantity increase in yield as well as the most relative increase except for the Kuruvai crop where tenants had a slightly higher relative increase in yield. According to farm size, the larger farms tended to have larger quantity and relative increases in yields as well as higher yield levels for all three paddy crops. In order to get a general indication of whether or not the reported yields deviated from normal, the farmers were asked to indicate if their reported yield was more, less or normal for the variety grown on each paddy crop for each year on his own land. (See Table 4.13) Although there was some variation in the qualitative response between crops and between years, there was generally no change in the relative proportion of farmers who indicated higher yields compared to lower yields than normal. As would be expected in a survey using recall for past years, there was less deviation from normal in 1965—66 than 1970-71. This may imply that farmers gave responses more in terms of a normal year for the period around 1965—66 than actual performance for that particular year. Kuruvai Number Percent Percent Thaladi llanBer Percent W. lvmber Percent ‘--—-—— variation in pro< Ivbalance, the 1 Within acceptablv in yields for thv The neasur Place in the two representative 0 t001v place for I love in total “It somewhat di Mil productior 59 TABLE 4.13' QUALITATIVE MEASURE OF VARIATION FROM NORMAL YIELDS OF PADDY FOR EACH PADDY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. 1965-66 1970-71 More Normal Less More Normal Less Kuruvai Nu—mFer 19 102 8 45 66 22 Percent 15% 79% 6% 34% 50% 16% Samba Number 1 27 7 2 24 5 Percent 3% 77% 20% 6% 78% 16% Thaladi Nfifiber 25 88 15 34 61 38 Percent 20% 69% 11% 25% 46% 29% Total Number 45 217 30 81 151 65 Percent 16% 74% 10% 27% 51% 22% Fortunately, neither year presented any catastrophic variation in production because of periodic weather problems. hatnlance, the production information was believed to be wfithin acceptable limits of representing the general change in.yie1ds for the survey villages. The measured changes in paddy production which took gflace in the two survey villages is believed to be fairly representative of the changes in total paddy production which took place for Thanjavur District. However, the sources of change in total paddy production for the District as a whole were somewhat different from the sources of change in total [Eddy production in the survey villages. While the total —_— .-—- 1— A . W 4 r gross area of pad mainly because of of paddy in the s Counteracti the yield increa about 19 percent ll percent for a official e District indicat years under stud yields of paddy Thaladi paddy, e survey villages . Years of 1963-64 base year produc Philly production sure than the mea Sirl’ey villages. iii for District Production. Inputs user illoughly dividv iifined here as i iii few items ViHive. nearly ii Production p 60 gross area of paddy increased 11.3 percent for the District, mainly because of increased double cropping, the gross area of paddy in the survey villages increased 2.8 percent. Counteracting this variance of change in paddy area, the yield increase for all paddy crops combined increased about 19 percent in the survey villages compared to about 10 percent for all of Thanjavur District. Official estimates of paddy production for Thanjavur District indicate an increase of 32 percent between the two years under study. However, 1965-66 produced less than normal yields of paddy for the District as a whole for Samba and Thaladi paddy, even though they were relatively normal for the survey villages. If the average yields for the three crop years of 1963-64 to 1965—66 are used as a basis to determine base year production, the estimated general increase in total paddy production was about 24 percent which is just slightly more than the measured increase of 22 percent for the two survey villages. See Tables A.8, A.9 and A.10 in the Appen- dix for District statistics on area, yield and total paddy production. Changes in Input Use Inputs used in producing paddy in addition to land can be roughly divided between capital and labor. Capital is defined here as being all inputs other than labor. Except for a few items such as the purchase of two tractors in one tillage, nearly all of the capital investment is used up in the production process. Capital an purchased and th such as seed and well as family 1 for each paddy c Table 4.14. The use of between 1965-66 her, by weight, than in 1965-66. are converted to increases are fo nutrient value 0 Kuruvai crop inc Cations increase the nutrient valv Thaladi paddy crw the increases for inabsolute quan' lost nutrients is iii kilograms pv iii kilograms, The fact t '“ii Chemical fe iiteution. is w ilThmladi paddy 61 Capital and labor is divided between that which is purchased and that which is supplied by the household. Inputs such as seed and manure may be supplied by the household as well as family labor. The average use per acre of all inputs for each paddy crop for 1970—71 and 1965—66 is given in Table 4.14. The use of chemical fertilizers increased rapidly between 1965-66 and 1970—71. More than twice as much fertil— izer, by weight, was applied to each paddy crop in 1970-71 than in 1965-66. When the different types of fertilizers are converted to their nutrient content, even more dramatic increases are found. As shown in Table 4.15, the total nutrient value of the chemical fertilizers applied to the Kuruvai crop increased 270 percent. Samba fertilizer appli— cations increased the most with a 350 percent increase, and the nutrient value of chemical fertilizer applied to the Thaladi paddy crop increased 275 percent, slightly more than the increases for Kuruvai fertilizer applications. However, in absolute quantities, the Kuruvai paddy crop received the most nutrients from chemical fertilizers with an average of 43.7 kilograms per acre while Samba and Thaladi had 32.4 and 38.6 kilograms, respectively, in 1970-71. The fact that the Thaladi crop received nearly as much chemical fertilizer as the Kuruvai crop deserves close attention. As was indicated above, the 18 percent increase inThaladi paddy yield was somewhat unexpected in view of the AVERAGE LE PADDY CROP TABLE 62 4.14 AVERAGE LEVEL OF INPUT USE PER ACRE FOR EACH PADDY CROP ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. t 1965-66 1970—71 mp“ Kuruvai Samba Thaladi Kuruvai Samba Thaladi Fertilizer (Kgs) Urea 16.6 6.7 13.1 37.0 27.5 36.8 Monium sulfate 8.2 13.3 8.6 7.5 2.2 7.5 Super phosphate 11.4 7.5 11.2 2.2 0.6 1.4 Potash 0.3 0 0.2 9.2 5.7 6.8 Paddy mix 1.2 0.6 1.6 4.1 0.6 2.7 Di-amonium phosphate 0.2 o 0.2 25.6 22.1 21.4 Total 37.9 28.1 34.9 85.6 58.7 76.6 Plant protection BHC-DD’I‘ (Kgs) 1.06 O 0.89 3.87 0.04 3.58 Endrine (tins) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.52 0.45 0.43 Eolidol (tins) 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.25 0.22 0.28 Manure (cartloads) Purchased 1.9 0.4 O 1.7 2.0 0 (m supply 9.9 4.4 o 10.8 2.5 o '1le 11.8 4.8 0 12.5 4.5 0 Seed (Kgs) Purchased 0 0 0 0 0 .18 Om supply 41.46 31.22 36.81 38.07 29.43 34.67 Total 41.46 31.22 36.81 38.07 29.43 34.85 Tractor (acres)a Hire .415 .797 .443 .554 .711 .578 Own supply 0 0 118 .123 .121 Total .415 .797 .443 .672 .834 .699 labor (days) Hired 48.0 44.0 43.8 50.5 44.8 45.3 Family 5.2 1.4 4.6 5.1 1.4 4.5 Total 53.2 45.4 48.4 55.6 46.2 49.8 a . . Figures represent proportion plowed by tractors of total paddy area. 00% #60500 ~ ~ ~ th Ohmufigmmi mwmfl EEEEBHBEWERE gmgmaggaéggfimambéag mlhulv a 63 ma. 34. 9.3. haunted . . mvflmmmonmm glam onm 3N oom. 880m mom. 8on8 5% x m 2 an... manna How Ramadan H82 Ho 1 1 mung“? mo xoonofim .médq ufi 5 53o £938 EH8 2» 8h amongst iiiliieiiu 2.? 83+ 5? a? 9mm Em 93 98 63.29 8? 88+ 3? 8? «Am m.~ oi oi 35m 2.? 83+ 8? E? 5.9 in «.3 New E 2323 03 m5 H.” 3. Stage. 3. do m4 3.. Beam «.3 no 3 3.. 03%! 81.33 .1533...” m=34§va H38. H Ewmmnuomu—Fmaofimoam cumoflfiz H309 25338 agonflmfim mammofifiz menu hound [omens pagan .thOhmH g wwlmoqfi .g Em ZH gm 8% a g Emgégggéggamggé mH.v a fact that the 11 much higher at 1 least two reasou for Thaladi pad (with lower yiel percent to 95 p1 total quantity i in the form of for Kuruvai pad. the quantity in quantity increa nearly Comparab Kuruvai and The WY Yield inc The use 0 increase betwee 3to 5 times as all paddy Crops 64 fact that the increase in Kuruvai paddy yield was not too much higher at 24 percent. There now appears to be at least two reasons for the relatively large increase in yield for Thaladi paddy. First, the use of a high yielding variety (with lower yield potential than ADT—27) increased from 58 percent to 95 percent of the Thaladi area. Secondly, the total quantity of plant nutrients applied on Thaladi paddy in the form of chemical fertilizers was nearly as high as for Kuruvai paddy. In addition, it must be pointed out that the quantity increase in Kuruvai yield was nearly double the quantity increase for the Thaladi paddy yield. Thus, the nearly comparable increase in fertilizer application for Kuruvai and Thaladi paddy returned only about half as much paddy yield increase for Thaladi as for Kuruvai. The use of plant protection also showed a marked increase between 1965—66 and 1970-71. There was between 3 to 5 times as much plant protection used in 1970-71 for all paddy crops compared to the earlier period with the Kuruvai and Thaladi paddy crops receiving much higher doses than Samba paddy. As a preventative measure, the increased use of plant protection should have had the effect of reducing the risk of yield loss from disease or insect infestation. Application of manure did not vary much between the two periods. While there was a 6 percent increase in manure used for Kuruvai paddy production, there was a comparable decrease in the paddy.25 The quant paddy crops. T Kuruvai paddy Spercent reduc decrease may be possible increa less seedlings. crops may be do differences in There was between the twc f“ the Plowing the prOPOri‘ion from 51 Percent in acre, The numbe Slightly fOr a] Labor days f0r Spercent f011< respectinly' 1 \ ZSBe i Ca 8: the field? 11:22“ begins, an . Thaladi 3433?] 65 decrease in the quantity of manure applied to Samba paddy.25 The quantity of seed used was reduced for all three paddy crops. The seed rate decreased by 8 percent for Kuruvai paddy with a 6 percent reduction for Samba and a 5 percent reduction for Thaladi. Possible reasons for the decrease may be due to better management of the nursery or possible increased use of line planting which may require less seedlings. The differences in rates between the paddy crops may be due to differences in germination rates or to differences in the kernel size. There was a substantial increase in the use of tractors between the two periods. Tractors with cage wheels are used for the plowing operation. When all paddy crops are included, the proportion of area which used tractor plowing increased from 51 percent to 71 percent for a 39 percent increase per acre. The number of labor days used per acre increased slightly for all paddy crops between 1965-66 and 1970-71. Labor days for Kuruvai paddy increased the most with about 5 percent followed by an increase of 3 and 2 percent, respectively, for Thaladi and Samba paddy production. Almost all of the increase in labor days per acre was for 25Because considerable time is needed to apply manure to the fields, this operation is accomplished before the season begins. For an apparent lack of time between the first and second paddy crop, manure is not applied to Thaladi paddy. hired labor. Th on a per acre ba effect of increa in detail in Cha One cost w the cost to tena the tenants paic‘ landlords. And 1965-66 and 197C ' increased becaus : the quantity of the Yield increa landlords decree 66 hired labor. The family labor input remained nearly constant on a per acre basis. Changes in employment as well as the effect of increased tractor use on employment will be discussed in detail in Chapter VI. One cost which did not change in absolute terms was the cost to tenants of renting land from landlords because the tenants paid a fixed quantity of the harvest to the landlords. And this fixed quantity did not change between 1965-66 and 1970—71. Thus, although the value payment increased because of the increase in the price of paddy, the quantity of paddy paid remained the same. Because of the yield increase, the proportion of paddy paid to land- lords decreased as is shown in Table 4.16. In total for all paddy crops, the proportion of the total harvest paid to landlords decreased from 47.2 percent to 39.9 percent. TABLE 4.16 AVERAGE PROPORTION OF TOTAL PRO- DUCTION PAID BY TENANTS IN SAMPLE VILLAGES TO LANDLORDS, BY PADDY CROP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. 1965—66 1970-71 —————— percent~---—--- Kuruvai 46.7 37.6 Samba 54.4 55.4 Thaladi 46.7 40.9 Total 47.2 39.9 It is wor‘ paid by tenants governing tenant more than 40 pe however, only b any reduction i an average paym 0f 40 percent, Paid to landlor only Samba padd excess of the 1 llldlly 0f the lan 0f tenancy laws between the ter While mos incredsed’ thej of all inputs, Table 4.17 . HOV increased 6 per PerCent' and ti By far the larc \ 26 Price 0 It is life The ave Paddy °PP01 67 It is worthwhile to note that the average proportion paid by tenants in 1970-71 is in line with state laws governing tenancy. Landlords are not allowed to accept any more than 40 percent of the harvest. This was achieved, however, only because of increases in production, not through any reduction in the quantity paid to the landlords. Being an average payment, many of the tenants are paying in excess of 40 percent, and the proportion of the Samba paddy crop paid to landlords is over 55 percent. Thus the tenants with only Samba paddy land are all on the average paying in excess of the legal rate. As was indicated in Chapter II, many of the landlords exempt themselves from enforcement of tenancy laws by keeping the agreement on an oral basis between the tenant and landlord. While most of the inputs used in paddy production increased, their factor prices also increased. The prices of all inputs, combined, increased 32.6 percent as shown in Table 4.17. However there was wide variation in the price changes. On the average, fertilizer and manure both increased 6 percent. Plant protection prices increased 25 percent, and the average price of seed increased 30 percent.26 By far the largest increase in price per unit occurred for 26The average price of seed was imputed from average price of paddy since almost no seed was purchased. Thus, it is the opportunity cost of using the paddy for seed. AVERAGE PRICE C FARM OPERATC Fertilizer: (pe Urea Anonium sulfa Super phospha Potash Paddy mix Di-amonium p} Total Manure (per Ca] Plant Protectic lHC-DDT (per Endrine (per Fond“ (per Total Seed (136!“ Kg.” Tractor hire (1 labor (Per day: \ a . USlng PaaSChe l) sighted av er 68 TABLE 4.17 IWERAGE PRICE OF INPUTS FOR PADDY PRODUCTION PAID BY SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. 1965-66 1970-71 Percent Change ------ Rupees------- Fertilizer: (per Kg.) Urea .839 .966 +15 Amonium sulfate .489 .619 +27 Super phosphate .296 .413 +40 Potash .800 .573 -28 Paddy mix .751 .851 +13 Di-amonium phosphate 1.064 1.076 + 1 Total .865 .915 + 6“1 Manure (per cartload) 2.17 2.29 + 6 Plant protection BBC-DDT (per Kg.) .404 .535 +32 Endrine (per tin) 3.580 4.192 +17 Folidol (per tin) 3.055 3.966 +30 Total +25a Seed (per Kg.)b .190 .247 +30 Tractor hire (per acre) 30.90 32.98 + 7 Labor (per day)C 2.04 3.22 +58 All inputs +32.6a aUsing Paasche index, zPiQi bAverage village price for paddy. cweighted average by operations and male and female labor. A? labor. The wei rupees per day Slpercent incr The combi in factor price in Paddy produc therein, the av inputs for all i“Piltcosts for ‘ reléltive increa inhits used in with .1150 IUpee . coSts for Kuruv Samba or Thalad vweZOpercent Thhdiin 197C hr acre Were 1 heater than Th amounts 0f inpu hill decoy-(1e app % The total deperldent on tw 27Al in . or hit“: (and? 41a he fame rte l . Part hay °°st tgf 69 labor. The weighted average wage rate increased from 2.04 rupees per day in 1965-66 to 3.22 rupees in 1970-71 for a 58 percent increase.” The combination of increased input use and increases :hlfactor prices produced the increased cost of inputs used :hnpaddy production shown in Table 4.18. As indicated therein, the average per acre increase in cost for all inputs for all paddy craps combined was 72 percent. Although input costs for Thaladi paddy production had the highest relative increase with 79 percent, the absolute costs of inputs used in Kuruvai paddy production increased the most with also rupee per acre increase. The level of production costs for Kuruvai paddy was somewhat higher than either Samba or Thaladi for both years. Kuruvai production costs were 20 percent higher than Samba and 16 percent more than Thaladi in 1970-71. In 1965-66, Kuruvai production costs per acre were 18 percent more than Samba and 26 percent greater than Thaladi production costs. The variation in amounts of inputs used between tenure status and farm size cull become apparent in a following section. Changes in Total Value of Production The total value of paddy production is obviously dependent on two factors, namely, total quantity produced . 27A large proportion of wages paid to labor is paid in kind (paddy). This kind payment was valued at the price which the farmer received for his paddy sales. Therefore, a large part of the labor wages paid represents the oppor- tunity cost to the farmer. -Ifln“ hlr‘r H ‘rllgEF ‘lrillllt - Il'lll11l11l' .Irl-Iillul. rial ml! III III! . .F. -f‘ II. 0Wflfl£0 UCUUHQQ ‘ \ \ \. \ odthbmH 024 WWIMWQH \NONU Nnndm Mm \WWWQQQHb NW5MDW 2H madflfmn MHlezmmW 7H0 ZOHBUDQOMH“. Noam. “0 QUAD.‘ “mm mh—ubgH 8N0 .Humou mw§m>4~w mJFIIv mquNL—U 70 can rxmu csma was “mum3 .mumoo uwvmuo .mumoo cowummfluufl .aoaumwomumwu humcwaomfi rmusmcfl commnousmcoc mmcsaocH .wmumu moms mmmaafl> mmmum>w um vmsam> U o .uoan ucwcmEHmm cam andmmo nuon mUSHUGH Hmnuo can Honomuu swung cofiuomuonm human .wnsama wmmmsonsm .mHDQCfi commfiousm Hosea a .muwuflafluumm Hmowfimao mmvsaoch ms + mam mmm sam mam dance as + mm mm Hm om cmumoo uwcuo om + ma ma a ma ouonma omczo so + Hma wma mmH mod muonma cmuwm wma+ voa mm Hm wad mmusocfl cwwmcousm anlonma ms + so + mm + oom oma mma mmm Hmuoa mm + mm + Hm + ow vm wv Hm mumou Hmnuo mm + ooa+ mm + OH AH N NH uonmH :30 mm + we + mm + mm mm hm Hoa nonma vmufim mva+ vm + mNH+ we ow he mm musmcw Ummmcousm wmnmoma uuuuu -Inunsnnnuuamommm mwwmsm mmouu — * mmouu scams HH¢_ aumamna magma nm>snsx sauna Has sumamaa anamm Hm>susm mocmso unmoumm .Hhsonma ozm woumoma .momo woman mm .mmomqu> wm>msm zH mamas mqmz< wH . v MHQ¢B and the price 1: total paddy prc villages increa time, prices re Table 4.19. W1". bY17.5 percent sold increased Since the than the unweig less in 1967-55 higher price fc 197041. In ad Stored for late sold immediate] the Price of pa hilher than the In Order — 'w 71 and the price per unit of paddy. As was shown earlier, total paddy production from all paddy crops in the survey villages increased by 22 percent. Over the same period of time, prices received for paddy also increased as shown in Table 4.19. While the unweighted average price increased by 17.5 percent, the average price weighted by the quantity sold increased 30.1 percent. Since the weighted average price was 8 percent higher than the unweighted price in 1970—71, compared to 2 percent less in 1967-55, it was believed that farmers received a higher price for greater quantities of paddy marketed in 1970-71. In addition, the weighted average price for paddy stored for later sale was 15 percent higher than the paddy sold immediately after harvest in 1970-71. In 1965—66, the price of paddy stored for later sale was only 3 percent higher than the paddy sold at harvest time. In order to test the importance of quantity of paddy sold and time of sale in determining the price received for Paddy, a simple regression analysis was performed of the following form: Pik = ai + Bli Xlik + B2i xzik + eik where: Pik = price received for paddy in the ith year by the kth farmer, measured in rupees. a. = constant term for the ith year. MEASUREMENTS FARM OPERP ACCORDINC 1 Measurement of Paddy Price \- lvera e rices UnweigEta Weighteda Tim Stored for la a\ “EightEd accort 1- = que 1 k kt] X = 21k 0. th1 : 1, it e. . ~ er: 1k The priCe are continuws ‘ a only indiCat e d 72 TABLE 4.19 MEASUREMENTS OF PRICES RECEIVED FOR PADDY BY SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, AVERAGES AND ACCORDING TO TIME OF SALE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Rupees Per Kalam Measurement Percentage Change of Paddy Price 1965-66 1970-71 in Paddy Price Avera e rices UnweigEtEd 12.21 14.35 +17.5 Weighteda 11.92 15.51 +3o.1 Time of salea At’harvest 11.85 14.69 +24.0 Stored for later sale 12.15 16.86 +38.8 a Weighted according to quantity sold. quantity of paddy sold in the ith year by the X H II kth farmer, measured in kalams. X2i = 0, if paddy was sold at the time of harvest in the ith year by the kth farmer; = 1, if paddy was stored for later sale in the ith year by the kth farmer. ei = error term in the ith year for the kth farmer. k The price and quantity variables in the above equation are continuous while the time of sale variable was treated as a zero-one (dummy) variable because the data collected only indicated if the paddy was sold at the time of harvest or stored for la as not measured with the standar period, are shoe The result quantity sold a1 on the price rec were significan1 0f multiple deto percent of the . these two varia] While bot] ficant at the l was only 0.0196 tion in Prices . Thus! the (Want and in determin measurements f0 hality Which to paddyPrices, t estimate for pr 73 or stored for later sale.28 The time in storage before sale was not measured. The estimates of the coefficients, along with the standard errors and levels of significance for each period, are shown in Table 4.20. The results of this analysis indicate that both the quantity sold and the time of sale had a significant effect on the price received for paddy in 1970-71. Both variables were significant at the 0.05 percent level. The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) was 0.4099 indicating that 41 percent of the variation in paddy prices was explained by these two variables in 1970-71. While both quantity sold and time of sale were signi— ficant at the 10 percent level in 1965—66, value for the R2 was only 0.0196 indicating less than 2 percent of the varia- tion in prices was explained by the independent variables. Thus, the quantity sold and time of sale were not very import— and in determining paddy prices in 1965—66. Without having measurements for the other factors such as variation in quality which may have been more important in determining paddy prices, the average price received was the best available estimate for price received in 1965-66. 28From the standpoint of economic theory, the simul— taneous nature of price and quantity determination in the market is acknowledged. The rather simplistic model presented here is intended only to indicate structural relationships between price received and quantity sold and time of sale rather than estimation of supply or demand elasticities. _ r Ll -HbthmH 02¢ wwlmmmfl sNQQSH NON QM>HNUMN MWUHmm OH QMH¢HMN WNOHUSN NON MBQDWNN ZOHWWHNUNN ONIV ““ng 74 mooo.ov mmaeea. mmmmmm.H Amxv sham mo mans mooo.ov omaooo. Namaoo.o laws edom suspense mmos.o wo.sa Ami namumaoo sew Heaosma Hmo.o mmmosm. amomma.o Amxv mfimm mo mane mmo.o smmooo. oamooo.o- “Hwy eaom suspense emso.o 5H.NH Ame pneumaoo mam eeummma NM OUQMUflMHCUflm HamHUVHMMOOU NO UfimfiOHMW—QOU WCOflflflfoQmQO @HQMHHMNV MO H0>01H .HOHHM UHNUGMHW MO GSHMNV MO .HQQEUZ UCM HM$W .Hauosma oza molmema .soomm mom om>Hmomm mmonm 09 engages mmoaoam mos msqsmmm onmmmmomm ON . v MAQ a assoc: Hamsm Hamsw omnmeo mo lllllllln mno> condom .mNHm swam . oevmmma mmmsmmmaqu> we>msm zH mmosammmo swam seesaw mom Havonma oza oHsosoomm women so mnqm> gases zH mozamo so mumsom mm . w mqmjmh. income generate compared betwee which groups as the net return are deducted a2 where a few far and relatives. As indicz i first Crop in p . This is the crv high Yielding . . than variEties . was seen in a ] Kuruvai Paddy ‘ The tota is given in Ta fications. As largest increa Percent increa total Value of increase fer t At least produetion and tobe due to t 0W1 er“iii‘érator .M _. 7 I; IIIIIIIIIIIIII:_________________________———I 80 income generated by the enterprise, and this figure can be compared between farm size groups and tenure types to show which groups are generating the most income. To arrive at the net return to the farm operator, payments to landlords are deducted along with payments to owners of managed land where a few farmers are managing land on behalf of friends and relatives. Kuruvai As indicated earlier, the Kuruvai paddy crop is the first crop in the double cropping pattern of paddy production. This is the crop which had the largest increase in use of high yielding varieties with a higher yielding potential than varieties generally used for the other two crops. As was seen in a previous section, total production of Kuruvai paddy increased by 36 percent. The total value per acre of Kuruvai paddy production is given in Table 4.24 according to the three tenure classi- fications. As is shown there, the owner operators had the largest increase in total value of production with a 58 percent increase compared to a 33 percent increase in the total value of production for owner-tenants and a 45 percent increase for tenants. At least part of the much higher level of value of production and higher change in value per acre would appear to be due to the higher expenditure on purchased inputs for owner-operators than for owner—tenants and tenants. A little 1 VALUE I \ .\ Value of Product InPM and Retur: \ Total value of Productiona l’tlrchased inputs Hired laborc Total costs “8t Mum to la and management T" hfldlord To one“ Of man llet return to fa ”Erato; \ 310m Value of Weighted “Verag b mchased input lured bullock 1: Includes both C ‘1 0'“ labor was V 3 Mel °°Sts inc credit °°8ts (1' l lime: in pm £31 TABLE 4.24 VALUE OF INPUTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE FOR KURUVAI PADDY FOR SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY TENURE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Value of Production, 1965-66 l970-7l Inputs and Returns Owner- Owner- 1 Owner- Owner- Qperator Tenant Tenant gggpgrator Tenant I Tenant Rupee; — Total value of productiona 557 509 496 878 f 677 718 (+S8t) (+33%) (+45%) purchased inputsb 57 43 42 132 82 as Hired laborc 103 102 98 169 146 143 Own labo 3 26 31 4 36 42 Other costsa 66 59 46 88 74 53 Total costs 255 2T7 (+72.) (+47%) (+49t) Net return to land and management 328 279 279 485 339 395 (+48.) (+22%) (+42%) To landlord 4 154 232 153 270 To owners of managed land 12 16 Net return to farm operator 312 125 47 469 176 125 (+50t) (+418) (+66!) .Total value of paddy production was calculated by multiplying total production by the weighted average price received from paddy sales for each farm. b Purchased inputs includes chemical fertiliser, purchased manure, plant protection, hired bullock plowing, hired tractor plowing, purchased seed, tractor Operating costs. cIncludes both casual and permanent labor. d Own labor was valued at average village casual labor wage rates for each operation. e Other costs includes seed and manure supplied by the farm operator, irrigation costs, credit costs (interest paid), water and land tax, and machinery depreciation. 1figures in parentheses are percentage changes from 1965-66. over 70 percen expenditures c the ovmer-oper acre than owne purchased inpu expenditures ; SIOUps. Anotk 71 for owner-c which the prod which were Own average of 34 dam“ PEr ac ComPaIEd to 16 tenants, AlthOUgl between term“ labor), a larg ind begauSe tl cost whiCh Was of Wages Paid the mer‘tena kind payment v detailed diScr labor days use miner“); acre to land a d ( IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf________________________——7 82 over 70 percent of the value of purchased inputs represented expenditures on fertilizer in 1970-71. The inference is that the owner—operators applied considerably more fertilizer per acre than owner—tenants or tenants. In terms of total purchased inputs, owner-operators had nearly 60 percent higher expenditures per acre on purchased inputs than the tenant groups. Another reason for the higher value product in 1970- 71 for owner-operators is because of the higher price at which the production was valued for the very large farmers which were owner-operators. As shown in Table 4.25, an average of 34 percent of the increase in total value of pro— duction per acre was due to price increases for owner-operators compared to 16 percent for owner-tenants and 20 percent for tenants. Although there doesn't appear to be much difference between tenure types in total value of labor (hired and family labor), a large part of the hired wages were paid in kind. And because this kind payment is valued at the opportunity cost which was higher for the very large farmers, the value of wages paid by these farmers was somewhat higher than for the owner—tenants and tenants even though the quantity of kind payment was generally the same. ChapterVI provides a detailed discussion of differences between tenure types of labor days used in paddy production. Owner-operators generated the highest net return per acre to land and management. In 1970-71 owner-operators had a return per acre which was 146 rupees higher than SOURC IN T KURUVAI Tarn Operator Groups Tenure W(Ir-opera Owner-tenan Tenant E Tarn sizE (ac: Very smal Shall (2,51. Medium (5.0. Large (10.0. Very large All farm: \ amighted by i owner-tenants to 49 rupees 1 lecauSe the 0‘ on the “turn in the f°rm 01 owners of man; management Wa: mime incre Tasgreatest 1 increase °°mpg and a 50 Perc, ”3‘ V .L ——— 83 TABLE 4.25 SOURCE OF CHANGE BETWEEN 1965-66 AND 1970-71 IN TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTION PER ACRE FOR KURUVAI PADDY ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES. Farm Operator Total Change Change in Price Effect Groups in Value of Yield per Production Acre Per Acre ‘ ?=rcent ----------------- Tenure Owner-operator +58 +24 +34 Owner-tenant +33 +17 +l6 Tenant +45 +25 +20 Farm size (acres) Very sma — .5) +45 +24 +21 Small (2.51-5) +40 +22 +18 Medium (5.01-10) +41 +23 +18 Large (10.01-20) +47 +30 +17 Very large (20.01+) +63 +23 +40 All farmsa +53 +24 +29 aWeighted by area in each size group. owner-tenants and 90 rupees higher than for tenants compared to 49 rupees higher than either tenant—group in 1965—66. Because the owner—operator group had only a minor claimant on the return to land and management other than themselves in the form of an average 16 rupee per acre payment to the owners of managed land, most of the return to land and management was retained by the farm operator. Although the relative increase in net return per acre to farm operators was greatest for tenants who experienced a 66 percent increase compared to a 41 percent increase for owner—tenants and a 50 percent increase for owner—operators, the absolute amount of inc: was twice as l and three tin acre for owne: While t] of production owner-tenants lords as a pm was 48 percem Year. In 1965 Value of Mod and management 47 PEICent of the net retun in 1965'66, f to landlords acre, h Thus: 1 landlords in I Became Independwt 01 the tenants he in inpp the net rem“ t han fer mine) 0 . f SiVlng mile} ———— CW 84 amount of increase in net return per acre for owner—operators was twice as much as the increase in net return to tenants and three times as much as the increase in net return per acre for owner—tenants. While the total payment as a proportion of total value of production is 24 percent and 38 percent, respectively, for owner—tenants and tenants in 1970—71, the payments to land~ lords as a proportion of net returns to land and management was 48 percent and 68 percent, respectively, for the same year. In 1965—66, owner—tenants paid 30 percent of the total value of production or 55 percent of the net return to land and management to landlords while tenants paid an average of 47 percent of the total value of production or 83 percent of l the net return to land and management per acre to landlords in 1965-66. The reason for the decrease in proportions paid to landlords is because the payment is a fixed quantity per acre. Thus, the increase in yields accrued to the tenants because the same quantity of paddy' was handed over to the landlords in both years. Because the tenants pay a fixed quantity of paddy independent of the level of production, this should imply the tenants have as much incentive as owner-operators to invest in inputs which would produce higher yields. But, the net returns per acre to tenants are so very much lower than for owner-operators so as to reduce the possibility Of saving much more, if any, for investment in future paddy crops. This l ences between tion will be 1 There a] between farm : Kuruvai paddy farm size grop per acre on t] had the least larlest increa increase of f] group. As is in Value of p] was due t0 inc tion, this 8&1 inPuts used wj range of inc“ farm Size 91‘01 Value 0f Pure] Troup did not well large fa] Again, 1 labor “ed be1 is apparel“: paddy f°r the —_i— ' 85 crops. This will be considered in more detail when differ- ences between tenure types in cash income from paddy produc-~ tion will be presented later in Chapter V. There appears to be a rather strong relationship between farm size and total value of production per acre of Kuruvai paddy in 1970-71 (see Table 4.26). The very large farm size group had 31 percent more total value of production per acre on the average than the small farm size group which had the least. And the very large farm size group had the largest increase with 63 percent compared to a range of increase of from 40 to 47 percent for the other farm size group. As is seen in Table 4.25, 40 percent of the increase in value of production for the very large farm size group was due to increases in the price for paddy. But, in addi- tion, this same group had the largest increase in value of inputs used with an increase of 84 percent compared to a range of increase of from 43 to 59 percent for the other farm size groups. The large farm size group had the highest value of purchased inputs used in 1970-71. However, this group did not have the benefit of the price effect which the very large farm size group had. Again, there is not much difference in the value of labor used between the different farm size groups. But this apparent equality was due more to higher values for paddy for the larger farm size groups than to the quantity Of labor used, which was more for smaller farms as will be shown in Chapter VI. 1 his”: l “mughh n1 mm'fl‘a'mtflcaf m VALUE (F INPUIS AN) REIURNS PER was FOR KURJVM VILIIGES, BY FAN SIZE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. 86 mars 4.26 PADDY FOR SAMPLE FAIMS IN SURVEY Value of Production, 1965—66, Farm Size (Acres) 1970-71, Faun Size (Peres) Inputs and Returns Very Very Very Very snail Snall Median large large Snell Snell Median large large (0-2. 5) (2. 51-5) (5. 01-10) (10. 01—20) (20. 01+) (0-2. 5) (2 . 51—5) (5. 01-10) (10.01-20) (20. 01+) Total Value of ‘ production 493 493 596 565 555 716 692 843 829 906 (+451)a (+40!) (+41%) (+47%) (+63%) inpu 51 40 46 93 51 98 81 134 156 126 Bird labor 91 100 133 121 93 137 151 177 161 168 Dan Labor 36 26 7 4 54 35 7 5 Other costs 55 51 65 81 __63 1 105 86 costs an m ET 233 207 1T9 “39?: 177 To (+54%) (+52%) (+59%) (+43%) (+84%) , Net 22mm to land i and managanent 259 276 345 266 348 356 363 444 402 526 (+37%) (+32%) (+29%) (+51%) (+51%) To landlord 152 166 99 138 189 100 ' To owners of managed lard 19 24 Net return to farm aparator 197 110 246 266 329 218 174 344 402 502 (+1048) (+588) (Mot) (+51%) (+53%) aFigurm in parenthesis indicate pacentage changes fmn 1965-66. b For an explanation of the oanpositim of each cost category. see Table 4.24. While t the very larg very small fa to 48 percent increase in n nearly twice the very smal more per acre The pay t0 farm size. very small fa t0 about 10 F small farm si ‘ °Perator thar The medium Sl- 1| ‘ bSCauSe near] °Wner~°perat< had no rentec' The Very larg to ”hers of The re: operators by had the largv farm Operato: farmers 9am thOUgh they ‘ in relative Mad 87 While the net return to land and management per acre to the very large farm size group was 34 percent higher than the very small farm size group in 1965-66, this difference increased to 48 percent in 1970-71. At the same time the amount of increase in net return to land and management per acre was nearly twice as much for the very large farm size group than the very small farm size group. Thus the larger farms gained more per acre in both absolute and relative terms. The payments to landlords had a varying effect according to farm size. Since over 55 percent of the farmers in the very small farm size category were owner-operators compared to about 10 percent for the small group in 1970—71, the very small farm size had a higher net return per acre to the farm operator than the farmers in the small size farm category. The medium size farm group was effected less by payments because nearly 65 percent of the farmers in this group were owner-operators. The large and very large farm size groups had no rented land and were thus not affected by this claimant. The very large farm size group had a minor average payment to owners of managed land. The result in terms of net returns per acre to farm OPErators by farm size is that although the very small farms had the largest relative increase in net returns per acre to farm oPerators with a 104 percent increase, the very large farmers gained almost twice as much in absolute terms even though they gained about half as much as the smallest farmers in relative terms. In tota ienced increa In terms of t absolute term terms. Accor‘ gained the mo gained the mo farmers great. alarger incrm in price for ‘ °Perators as ‘ Use, ParticuL f ertilizers, ‘. largest Price Samba i: 0W“? patt. increase in (1‘ Daddy declina though t0ta1 : er acre incr. The tot; New for 0! less for cm] i ncrease, re s] E lnCreaSe 88 In total, all farm size groups and tenure types exper- ienced increased income per acre from Kuruvai paddy production. In terms of tenure, the owner-Operators gained the most in absolute terms while the tenants gained the most in relative terms. According to farm size, the smallest farm.size group gained the most in relative terms, and the largest farmers gained the meet in absolute terms. The reasons for the largest farmers greater absolute gain would appear to be due to both a larger increase in input use per acre and a greater increase in price for their paddy. The same was true for the owner- operators as a group. They had the largest increase in input use, particularly purchased inputs which was mostly chemical fertilizers, and because the owner-operators also had the largest price effect. Samba Samba is the paddy crop grown in the single-crap paddy cropping pattern in Thanjavur District. Because of the increase in double—cropped area, the total area of Samba paddy declined 22 percent between 1965—66 and 1970-71. And al- though total Samba paddy production decreased 18 percent, yield per acre increased 6 percent. The total value of production per acre increased 47 percent for owner-operators while the increase was considerably less for owner-tenants and tenants with a 23 and 30 percent increase, respectively. (See Table 4.27). In absolute terms the increase in total value of production per acre was about 1M” 0 ' nuflqml‘vhfl 89 .vw.v wanes mow ~muomwuwo umoo some mo coauwmomfioo w .mwlmmmH Eoum momcmno wmmucwouwm wumoficc an MC coaumcmamxw cm womb a mammcucwnmm as mwnsmflmm Ammmnv Awaamlv Amav+v H av: com me mm mmm “Opmuwmo Eumw ou undue» uwz mm ma puma pummcmfi mo muwczo 09 nwm vmm mam ovm HH UHOHUGMH OB AmOH+V Awe +V Awmm+v mmm mmm mmm How new mmm ucmfiwmmcwe cam UGMH 0p Quench uoz Awmm+v Awam+v vaw+v sma mmm “mm E E E 3380. H38. vm av vw mm we we mumoo uwcuo mm mm H om ma H HOQMH G30 mHH mma «ma on om mm HOQMH omufim ow mm mm Hm mm mv mucosa pummcousm Awom+v Ammm+v sawhv+v mam mvm mow oov mvv awe Goaposoonm mo m5am> Hmuoa n (comdmlll ill In: panama Houmnw.o panama Houmuwmo unmade [gecko Inoczo luwcso nuwczoy mcuawom use musmcH annonma _ omnmmma .GOHuosconm mo 05Hm> .Hsuosma ozm mesmmma . WMDZMB Nm ammU NM>MDw ZH m2m BN.v mqm¢8 twice as much and tenants. Althoug used for padd types, the le chemical fert twice as high The val nearly the sa °P€rat0rs hav But, again, t owner"399mm is Will be se for Samba Prc The net ”5 Percent Pircent incre for tenants, between term; 09 Ti erators Wa: cint higher 1 returns to 1i is s34 Wee] I 90 twice as much for owner-operators as for owner-tenants and tenants. Although the relative increase in total value of inputs used for paddy production did not vary much between tenure types, the level of purchased inputs (most of which is chemical fertilizer) used for owner—operators was nearly twice as high as for owner-tenants and tenants. The value of total labor used (hired + own labor) was nearly the same for all three tenure types, with owner- operators having the largest value of total labor expense. But, again, the higher price received for paddy by large owner-operators inflates the cost of labor for this group. As will be seen in Chapter VI, the number of days of labor for Samba production on owner-operator farms was less than for owner-tenants and tenants. The net return to land and management per acre indicates a 35 percent increase for owner-operators compared to a 6 percent increase for owner-tenants and a 10 percent increase for tenants. In 1965-66 there was not too much difference between tenure types for the net return to land and management per acre. The net returns to land and management for owner— operators was only 9 percent higher than tenants and 7 per- cent higher than owner-tenants. But in 1970-71, the net returns to land and management per acre for owner-Operators was 34 percent higher than tenants and 32 percent higher than owner-tenants. The pay drastic effec 1970-71. Own because the ; lord was 41 1 went. Even 1' they still 1: not much bett °Perator of c In 197C Value Of prod and Managemer 0f the total a to land and 1r 2 theowner-ter. . total Samba h . statEtenancy of the tetal had hid the received 75 r in1970.71 an Part of the I aimemtenant was that the how 83 to IE 30 1 e5 Manse they 91 The payment to landlords by the tenant groups had a drastic effect on net return to tenant farm operators in 1970-71. Owner-tenants as a group lost 41 rupees per acre tecause the payment of the 334 rupees per acre to the land- lord was 41 rupees higher than the return to land and manage- ment. Even if the value of their own labor is added in, they still lost 18 rupees per acre. The tenant group was not much better off with a net return per acre to the farm operator of one rupee. In 1970-71 owner-tenants paid 61 percent of the total value of production or 114 percent of the net return to land and management to the landlord. This compared to 53 percent of the total value of production or 99 percent of the return to land and management to the landlord in 1965-66. Obviously, the owner-tenants were returning a greater portion of the total Samba harvest to the landlord than is allowed in the State tenancy laws which states that no more than 40 percent of the total harvest is to be paid to the landlord. If they had paid the 40 percent rate, owner-tenants WOUld have received 75 rupees per acre in net return to the farm Operator in 1970-71 and an average of 99 rupees per acre in 1965-66. Part of the reason for the decrease in return per acre to owner-tenant farm operators in 1970-71 compared to 1965-66 was that the prOportion of rented to owned Samba land increased from 83.to lOOpercent.3O 30Even though all of the Samba land was rented-in in 1970-71, these farm operators were classified as owner-tenants because they owned some Kuruvai-Thaladi paddy land. m.- In com] of the total landlords. 1 percent allow 40 percent i1 received as a rulees in 191 still have be In addi 1 ms for owr were able to tena”Its and i may were nC - f“ Whereas, ' P er We Were 1970.71. The in lore was PositiVe Pric Percent fer t In adds in value of l heed a highs acre than sma very large fa respectivE 1y 92 In comparison, the tenant group paid the same proportion cm the total production, 55 percent, in both years to the landlords. Again, this was higher than the maximum of 40 percent allowed by State tenancy laws. If they had paid the 40 percent instead of the 55 percent, the tenants would have received as a net return per acre to farm operators of 81 rupees in 1970-71 and 101 rupees in 1965-66. This would still have been a decrease of 20 percent. In addition to the very high rates of payments to land- lords for owner-tenants and tenants, the reason owner-Operators were able to increase their net return per acre while owner- tenants and tenants suffered decreases would appear to be related to price received for their paddy. The yields of paddy were no more than 15 percent less than owner-Operators for owner-tenants and tenants in 1970-71, and their expenses per acre were about 25 percent less than owner-operators in 1970-71. The price effect for Samba total value of production per acre was 40 percent for owner-operators compared to a positive price effect of 18 percent for owner-tenants and 29 percent for tenants as shown in Table 4.28. In addition to receiving much higher absolute increases in value of production per acre, the larger farms also experi- enced a higher relative increase in value of production per acre than smaller farms. (See Table 4.29) The large and very large farm size groups had a 42 and 47 percent increase, respectively, while the very small, small, and medium size «um... i V 343‘“. 93 .msoum enam.noa0 :w some an coucmacsm ||l mm+ o + m¢+ mmfihmm Add ~a+ m + se+ A+Ho.o~v momma mum> m~+ ma+ ~q+ Aomuao.oae manna ea+ a + -+ Aoarao.mc endea: m~+ a + s~+ Amnam.~c Hausa NN+ m + om+ Am.mlb~ HHmEm hhm> Awesome exam sham m~+ H + om+ panama ma+ m + mm+ unacculuoazo .ov+ h + nv+ uoumucmouumcso ounces inniiiuneuiunuurine:useluiucmouemneisisuuiiiiannuitieslinens: cued num,soHuosooum poommm ocean whom and case» no osHm> museum cw wmcmno cw omcmno Hence nonhummo sham .me¢AQH> HW>MDm ZH mzm¢h mumzflm 20 fianflm dmzdm “Oh flm04 mam ZOHBUDDONQ ho MDA¢> A4908 2H HBIOhmH 024 owlmmmd Zflm3fimfl fiGdeU m0 WUmDOm mN.v NQQ¢B .HFIOFMH % WWIWWMH \MNNHW E E \g E fighagggmgmggamgggga 94 Ii th om :mt cm H .vné 0.3mm. mom Suomcumo umoo some no 5330960 93 MO 333% can a .mmwmmma Eu amass mmmucmonwm when? mmmmnflcgmm 5 nonhuman Rat son; as: Q. “Sesame man and no w «2 MR SN won Hm 5mm 8 58 $2 Eda NN accuse:— mo H950 DH. 0.85 8.. an a; as m: on H 3?; fit a i a : immune: noxaa «am as sma 8N mam SN wow new 08 W5 3 mfifiwu $2 an: Sm: am i eat moo EN Em amm mam E E MR E E DB flaw-wage S 8 «a am we 8 R mm we ~83 38 e mm mm m 3 5 Hanna 88.5 and «3 «2 NS mm 8 one ow as 3&5 monarchs am 5 as mm mm mm as em 2 . a} 33 AR a «83 . 8a a as sum 5 mam «.3 we. as ms. was no Bwfifla Wanna . STSé 3-3.3 Bangs: 878.3 3-3.3 male. :53 32m 033 :38: Hand FEM mfifimm Em mused $805 $3 Ema £722 immune mfim Ema . 3.89 .8308on do 83, 472.3 ozm $.33 .33 Ea... am .3 gm Egafigzogmgmegfimggmsgmog mNJ BE farm receiver in value of l percent of ti the very larr paddy. Looking the larger fa the smaller 1 had an increa Percent, the 0f 23 and 31 had the most returns to la for the large to the higher Price adVanta All fa] Emu OPGratm rather large tors, This ‘ by this gm“! than the 40 1 it the 40 De] 95 farm received a 30, 27 and 22 percent increases, respectively, in value of production per acre. As seen in Table 4.28, 42 percent of the increase in value of production per acre for the very large farms was due to a greater price increase in paddy. Looking at the returns per acre to land and management, the larger farm size groups had a much higher increase than the smaller farm size groups. While the very small farmers had an increase of 8 percent and small farmers increased 9 percent, the medium and large sized farmers had an increase of 23 and 31 percent, respectively, and the largest farmers had the most increase with a 36 percent increase in net returns to land and management. It would appear the reason for the largest farmers having the most increase may be due to the higher level of purchased inputs in addition to the price advantage for price of paddy already expressed. All farm size groups had an increase in net return to farm operator except the small farm size group which had a rather large decrease in net return per acre to farm opera- tors. This was due to the fact that all of the land operated by this group of farmers was rented in 1970—71 and these farm operators paid the landlords a greater portion of the harvest than the 40 percent indicated by State law. If they had paid at the 40 percent rate, they would have received a net return of 73 rupees per acre instead of incurring the 43 ruppee loss. Of the other farm size groups, the very small farmers “— had the his operators ‘ adecrease 90percent than 60 pe: farm size . 99 rupees 1 rupee inert In sup inSamba pa The benefi. larger fan Who rented mOStIY as a total Value more than a farmers ha< Thalm Pattern of cent increa in Thaladi by 30 Perc. “heme 21 perCent had the highest increase in net return per acre to farm operators with 79 percent. Part of their increase was due to a decrease in proportion of land rented. In 1965-66, nearly 90 percent of their Samba land was rented compared to less than 60 percent in 1970—71. In absolute terms, the largest farm size group had the most increase with an increase of 99 rupees per acre. The large farmers followed with an 80 rupee increase in net returns per acre to the farm operator. In summary, even though there was a 22 percent decrease in Samba paddy area, yields per acre increased 6 percent. The benefits of this increase in yield went mostly to the larger farmers and owner-operators as a group. The farmers who rented land experienced a decrease in net return per acre mostly as a result of paying a very large proportion of the total value of production to landlords which was considerably more than allowed by State law. In addition the largest farmers had a higher net return per acre because of higher prices received for their paddy. Thaladi Thaladi paddy is the second crop in the double-cropping pattern of paddy production. The combination of an 18 per- cent increase in yield per acre and a 10 percent increase in Thaladi area increased total production of Thaladi paddy by 30 percent. Whereas the yield per acre for owner—operators increased 21 percent compared to a 12 and 11 percent increase in yield for owner-1 value of pr operators < and a 25 pe Thus, incre on the tota compared tc tenants whj 0f Producti for owner-t value of pa Owner'Opera acre to Ian owner‘tenan While did not hav OPErator as resulted in tenants had acre to far decredw. increaSe in of the high it Can be S acre t0 our paddy. _iil 97 for ownervtenants and tenants, respectively, the increase in value of production per acre increased 61 percent for owner- operators compared to a 26 percent increase for owner-tenants and a 25 percent increase for tenants as shown in Table 4.30. Thus, increases in the price of paddy had a 40 percent effect on the total value of production per acre for owner-operators compared to a 14 percent price effect for owner-tenants and tenants which is shown in Table 4.31. Even though the costs of production per acre for owner-tenants increased more than for owner—tenants and tenants, the price advantage for the value of paddy along with higher yield increases provided owner-operators with a 38 percent increase in net return per acre to land and management while it remained unchanged for owner-tenants and tenants. While the payments to landlords by the tenant groups did not have as adverse effects on the net return to the farm Operator as was the case for Samba production, it nevertheless resulted in a decrease in net return per acre. While owner tenants had a minor, 5 percent, decrease in net return per acre to farm operators, tenants experienced a 52 percent decrease. At the same time owner—operators had a 41 percent increase in net return per acre to farm,operatorSa Because of the higher prices for paddy received by owner-Operators, it can be said that most of the increase in net return per acre to owner-operators was due to higher price for their paddy. .thOhmH Q24 wwlmwmd ~NNDZNB Hm \mm0¢HQH> NW>NDM 2H mad“ mqgm zo Mon—ANA“. Hogmhv mom MHmU¢ mmnfl. mZNHDH.‘ empav mqmdNoH a QZAN WHDNZH ho meAN> 98 .vw.¢ wanna mom rhuomouoo umoo some mo soapflmomEo 0 esp mo :ofiumsmamxm on song .mwummma Eouu momsmco unmeapcfi mflmmnpuonmm ca mousmflmm ANMIV Am Iv AH¢+V mmH HOUflHmmo ma em sum Hm mm EMMm on cannon umz NH puma ma commune mo Hocso OB 0 «ma mma mna HNH m oucaocma a no V Ac V Awm+v m cam usoaomMGME H0\pc mom mam mmm mom CNN odofl Ou :HDuwH #02 Amm+v Amm+v Amm+v H m mm mmm wwH mmH hbH mumoo Hence mm me He «N mm pm a mpmoo Hofio ow em v mm mm m HOAMH G30 mNH mma moa mm mm mm gonna wouam mm ms can mm mm as manage commnousm Amm+v AmN+V wham+v woe mom «mm «hm mow Nam aoauosuonm mo moao> Hence unmade ummswa noumuomo unmade panama Houmuwmo «Russo Inosso unoczo unocso wsnsumm pom musmcH Heuonma wwsmmma lcofiuocpoum mo osHm> .Hsuosma oz< woummmfl .mmozme em ~me¢AAH> >m>MDm ZH m2m¢h Mdmzdm 20 wandm Hadqdmfi mom WMUd mmm wszBmm 92¢ mBDmZH ho MDQ¢> om.v WAQ¢B _ -7 ,.7.._... , ommUANquHHNV NMHKVNHDW 2H mzNHANh flaw zo “Dam Hgfi WHO.“ 50¢. MHMHAH ZOHBUDQONHAW undo "NDJHdNKV .HdNHO-Hv 2H HFIOFQH Q24 WW WWWH ZMHEBHHWQ @gmnv LNO ”UNRDOW Hm n V Mugghv 99 .muouw when some ca mono an pounmwmzo ~m+ ma+ om+ cashew Ham mm+ h~+ wm+ A+Ho.omv momma mum> ~H+ m + o~+ lomuao.oac mound va+ ma+ om+ Aoauao.mv scape: ma+ HH+ o~+ Annam.~v Hausa na+ Ha+ m~+ .m.nnn~ HHmeu huo> Amouomv dawn such qa+ Ha+ m~+ unmaos ¢H+ ~a+ w~+ pomsmuuuosso ov+ H~+ ae+ wouMHOQOIHosBO ouasoa Inuunllnuunu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu anaconda lllllllllll a llllllll suntan vommmm ooaum used new name» duos mom coauosooum ca omsmnu mo osHm> undone an «mango dupes uouuuomo such .mmmdflAH> Nm>flbm 2H m2M 44909 2H thOhmH Qz< mmlmwad zmm3fimm MUZ¢MU ho NUMDOm Hm.v HQQ 86> \CMS 30> $533 one 3&5 Amouus 38 5mm Junonma 396$ oNflm Emmm .3133 5030588 mo 88> .thOhmH Q24 wwlmwaa .mNHm Swarm .Mm .Wmugg g Egmagmzowgm Hgma gfimmmwzgmgmgag NMJV a losses with large relat: production. The v: farm operat: to three far ations in c] There appea: and both fa; higher yielc higher yiel. Yields than 0f better m not “‘Easure larger farm acre in the is reflecte chased inpu ChemiCal fe that the Sm the ne°essa to Obtain c more detail A3 we largest far in Paddy pr 102 losses with tenants as a separate group showing a rather large relative decrease in net return per acre from Thaladi production. The variation in changes in net returns per acre to farm operators for the three paddy crops was due primarily to three factors, namely, variations in yield per acre, vari- ations in changes in the price received for paddy, and tenure. There appeared to be a relationship between yield per acre and both farm size and tenure. Generally, larger farms had higher yields than smaller farms. And owner-Operators had lugher yields than owner-tenants who, in turn, had higher yields than full tenants. In addition to the possibility 0f better management on the part of these groups, which was rmm.measured here, the owner-operators as a group and the larger farms as a subset of that group invested more per acre in the production of paddy than did other farmers. This is reflected particularly in the higher investment in pur- chased inputs, which increased mostly from increased use of Chemical fertilizer and plant protection. The inference is that the smaller farmers and tenant groups may n°t have had the necessary financial resources to invest in these inputs to obtain comparable yields. This will be investigated in more detail in Chapter VII. As was seen throughout the above discussion, the 1argest farmers had a much higher price effect from increases in Paddy prices than did other farmers. This led the largest farmers to 1 acre which . acre to lam Becau; production of the stud; in terms of to increase paid an ave lords. Thi an average, more than t The e the net ret llhether 0r equitable f total Produ dated in Ch all other i tenant Ope: acre aVerat had a net 1 would mph to invest : AS We all farm 8 103 farmers to have much higher total value of production per acre which in turn led them to have higher net return per acre to land and management than other farmers. Because the tenants paid a fixed quantity of total production to landlords which did not change over the period of the study, the farmers who rented land paid less in 1970-71, in terms of proportion of total harvest, than in 1965-66 due to increases in yields. In 1970-71, tenants and owner-tenants paid an average of 40 percent of the total harvest to land- lords. This compares to 47 percent in 1965-66. But being an average, the implication is that a number of farmers paid more than the 40 percent maximum set by state tenancy laws. The effect of the payment to landlords obviously reduced the net return to the tenant and owner—tenant farm operators. Whether or not this level of payment for the use of land was equitable from the standpoint of the land's contribution to total production in relation to other inputs will be investi- gated in Chapter VII. But since the tenant farmers pay for all other inputs, the result is very low return to the farm tenant operator compared to owner-operators. On a total gross acre average (including all three paddy crops), owner-operators had a net return about six times as much as tenants. This would imply the owner—operators are much more able, financially, to invest in purchased inputs for the paddy crops. As was seen earlier in this section, all farmers in all farm size and tenure categories made some gains from the Kuruvai padr farms which return per a addition to effects of ' crops had C1 PEI acre of average of labor. But also simila POtentials L l I, paddY were Kuruvai pad high a retu Samba and T I Elimination. 104 Kuruvai paddy crop. But for the most part, only the larger farms which were also owner—operators made gains in net return per acre from the Samba and Thaladi paddy crops. In addition to the differences in prices received for paddy and effects of tenure discussed above, the Samba and Thaladi crops had comparable relative rates of increases in costs per acre of inputs. Part of this can be explained by an average of 58 percent increase in wages per day for hired labor. But the relative increases in purchased inputs were also similar for all three paddy cr0ps. Since the yield potentials for most of the varieties for Samba and Thaladi paddy were not nearly as high as the varieties for the Kuruvai paddy crop, the farmers were probably not getting as high a return on investment in paddy production for the Samba and Thaladi crops as they were from Kuruvai paddy production. "Reev has dist Socia hedistrib YlElding va iSthat the distributed naehow di here effect (If new Vari . lOllowing l (h hnfitfrc 0W“EMPIRE T°What 8x1 benefit in Effect on ( the prim: hllOtheses from the 1'1 CHAPTER V CHANGES IN DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AMONG THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION "Reevaluation of the so-called "green revolution" has led to a growing realization of its severe distributional consequences.” [Gotsch, 1971] Social scientists have been increasingly concerned with the distribution of benefits from the introduction of high yielding varieties. The generally stated or implied hypothesis is that the benefits of the increased production have not been distributed evenly. The purpose of this chapter is to deter- mine how different groups of pe0p1e in a rice producing area were effected by the increase in production with the adoption cm'new varieties of rice. The analysis centered on the following two questions: (1) To what extent did various groups of peOple benefit from the increased production? How were landlords, owner-operators, tenants, and landless laborers effected? To what extent did farm.operators in various farm size groups benefit from the new technology? was there any variation in effect on general caste groups? This set of questions forms the principle reason for this study. Various statements or hypotheses have been made about who has or has not benefited from the new technology. The hyPOtheses include that only the large f; benefited, ' no group 10: gained more these hypotl measures of in persuanc (2) production incqne from small propo Paddy produ if Paddy pr to this is invest in P Other incon sales, the in Purchase The ( Part Presa the fan“ 0; of ems“; by Caste' . will be C0] Paddy Prod for the De technqogy 106 the large farm operators benefited, that only landowners benefited, that laborers lost relative to other groups, that no group lost absolutely but there were various groups who gained more than other groups, or some other combination of these hypotheses. This study was designed to provide detailed measures of changes in income from increased paddy production in persuance of these hypotheses. (2) How important were changes in income from paddy production in relation to other sources of income? If the income from paddy production only represents a relatively small proportion of total income, increases in income from paddy production would have less effect on total income than if paddy production was the sole source of income. Related to this is the question of availability of resources to invest in paddy production. By measuring cash income from other income sources in addition to cash income from paddy sales, the ability of different groups of farmers to invest in purchased inputs will be indicated. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first part presents measurements of changes which took place among the farm operators surveyed in the two villages. By means 0f cross—tabulation by tenure, farm size, and in some cases by caste, the effects for different groups of farm operators will be compared. Gini ratios of distribution of income from Paddy production and income from all sources will be compared for the periods before and after the introduction of the new technology. The s' of change wl third part agricultura combined) w households. between var of the Gini and after t As in “or income CrObs, agri Changes in sepélra’cely 1heome to t Die The < from Paddy changes d1: We ref; area and ci pattfirm). returns to 107 The second part of the chapter focuses on measurements of change which took place for landless laborers, while the third part presents measurements of changes among the total agricultural population (farm operators and landless laborers combined) which represents nearly 85 percent of the village households. The changes in flows of resources and income between various groups will be shown along with a comparison of the Gini ratio for the distribution of total income before and after the introduction of the new technology. Changes in Distribution of Income Among Farm Operators As indicated in Chapter III, four sources of farm oper— ator income were measured, namely, paddy production, other crops, agricultural labor, and nonagricultural income. The changes in income for each of these sources will be discussed separately and then aggregated to show the changes in total income to the households. Distribution of Income From Paddy Production The changes in net income to farm operator households from paddy production is the aggregate effect of all of the changes discussed previous to this section. The changes in income reflect changes in area (from both changes in net area and changes in area resulting from a change in cropping pattern), changes in production and Changes in per acre returns to paddy production. The following discussion gives a measure of how the benefits of the increased production of paddy were 1 surveyed 1n Net Real Va Net v value of pr, both purcha tion (and c by the price the quantit is valued a other Uses ments in ki income from i of family 1 asSumPtion totes. Thu is a rEturn in Paddy pr following 5 The t duction is 108 paddy were distributed within the group of farm operator surveyed in this study. Net Real Value Income From Paddy Production Net value income from paddy production is the total value of production less all costs of production including both purchased and nonpurchased inputs. The value of produc— tion (and costs where they were paid in kind) is determined bythe priceper unit which the farm operator received for the quantity of paddy he sold. Thus, the total production is valued at the opportunity cost of sales as opposed to other uses for the paddy such as consumption, gifts and pay— ments in kind for other goods and services. The net value income from paddy computed here does not include the value of family labor. This was deducted as a cost under the assumption that the family labor and hired labor are substi- tutes. Thus, the net value income from paddy presented here is a return to the enterprise. The value of family labor in paddy production on their own farm will be shown in the following section. The total change in net value income from paddy pro— duction is indicated in Table 5.1. In total the net value income at current prices of paddy from all paddy crops increased 48 percent between 1965-66 and 1970—71. The net value income from Kuruvai paddy production increased the most with a 71 percent increase. Income from Thaladi paddy production followed with a 49 percent increase. And, in _‘ kc) 7‘ in 109 TABLE 5.1 TOTAL NET VALUE PADDY INCOME FROM SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Year Paddr Crops KuruvaifvT Samba Thaladi I All Crgps ----------------- RuTees------------------ 1965-66 125,742 73,536 90,051 289,329 1970-71 215,565 78,458 133,924 427,947 "De‘fI‘a'ted valuea 165,819 60,352 103,018 329,190 Percent change between 1965-66 and 1970-71 +71% + 7% +49% +48% Real change +32% -l8% +14% +14% aDeflated by the factor 1.3. spite of a 22 percent reduction in Samba area, income at current prices from Samba production showed an increase of 7 percent. When the net value income for paddy in 1970-71 is deflated by the change in consumer-prices between 1965-66 and 1970-71 to reflect real changes in income,the increases 31 in paddy income are reduced considerably. The real increase 1According to a consumption survey taken in the two villages at the same time as the other surveys, consumer prices increased 29.8 percent between 1965-66 and 1970-71. This result as well as price indices from other sources are given in Table A.ll of the Appendix. Since the results of the consumer survey in the two villages was very close to the other indices of change in prices, a factor of a 30 percent increase was accepted as being a close approximation of change In consumer prices in the villages surveyed for this study. in income f deflated, i Thaladi pad the 30 perc Samba paddy Table Paddy prodt and tenure not appear farm size c out as havi 0f 14 perce In ti . gained the paddy prodr farm size g Wow the V 110 in income from all paddy crops was 14 percent. After being deflated, income from.Kuruvai paddy increased 32 percent, and Thaladi paddy income increased 14 percent. But because of the 30 percent increase in consumer prices, income from Samba paddy decreased 18 percent. Table 5.2 shows how the increases in real income from paddy production effected farm operators in each farm size and tenure category. In terms of relative change, there do not appear to be any general tendencies with regard to either farm size or tenure. But particular groups of farmers stand out as having greater or less than the average overall gain of 14 percent in real income from paddy production. In the case of farm size, the largest farm size group gained the most with a 20 percent increase in income from paddy production. But this was followed by the smallest farm size group with a 9 percent relative increase which was below the weighted average increase for all farms. Medium sized farms had an average gain of 6 percent while the small and large farms showed very little change. The large farms actually lost 1 percent in real income from paddy production mostly because they had a large proportion of their land under Samba cultivation which had the least increase in income as measured in current prices when converted to real income produced a net loss from Samba paddy production. Farms included in other farm size categories had less land in Samba production except for the largest farmers. But the thObmH QZ¢ mwlmwmfl .HMDZHH QZ< NNHW EMSN Mm mmoaémmo gm mqgm NHOBH Q‘HOHIHMWDOHIH mmnmn NEOUZH Noam MDQKV QT‘MNN Bmz N e m. mqdepH. \WNUQQQH> NN5mDm 2H .ommmmma Eoum neocono 0>Humaou mpmoflosfl momosuamumm ca mousmwm lll A m.H nouoau he» an chansons Amva+v Awom+v Aware Awm+v Aw~+v ofiwm+v os~.m mmm.s~ mam.m mmm.m osm ems Hence iwmm+c . «mm mam m msa OOH museums Awe ac moo see.m sow gem ucmcmnuumgso imma+v . mom.e mmm.a~ mam.m sm~.m mmm m mam noumumaounmaso wasuonma mmm.a mms.om mmm.m oss.m Hem mom sauce «ma nmo.a sma moa panama was mmm.m mmm mma pamamuasmaso «ha.s mma.o~ amm.m Hma.m emm.H Ham uopmsmmo-umazo manage ; omnmmma sauce A+Ho.omv Aomuao.oav loameo.mv Amuam.mv Am.muoe mmumq momma Edwpmz aamfim AMoEm H0> HO> Awesome ouflm Esme endows Hemosma azm moummma .mmozme oze mNHm amen em .mmoaqu> wm>mom zH mmoeammmo smmm seesaw mom aoommmoom mmm msoozH wooed maq¢> gems emz N.m mflmfifi largest far prices for In to largest rel paddy incor the weighte 15 percent alarger i1 Operators : 0Perated 1)} Owner real paddy owner-tenet) income. A1 1035 while real Value of the re a gains Comp is because sizeable i 112 largest farmers had the advantage of receiving much higher prices for their paddy than other farmers. In terms of tenure classification, tenants had the largest relative gain with an increase of 23 percent in real paddy income. Owner—operators as a group were just above the weighted average increase in real paddy income with a 15 percent increase. The basic reason for tenants showing a larger increase in total real paddy income than owner- operators is due to the fact that most of the paddy land operated by tenants was used to grow Kuruvai-Thaladi paddy.32 Owner-tenants as a group incurred a 7 percent loss in real paddy income over the two periods. The medium sized owner-tenants had a loss of 25 percent in real value paddy income. And the small group of owner-tenant had a 5 percent loss while the smallest farmers had a 51 percent gain in real value paddy income. It would appear that at least part of the reason for the smallest owner-tenants getting high gains compared to the loss for the small group of owner-tenants is because the smallest group of owner-tenants had a relatively sizeable increase in the proportion of paddy land owned. In 1965-66 this group of farmers owned 35 percent of the paddy area operated which increased to 45 percent in 1970-71. Over 32In 1970—71 only 6 percent of tenant—operated area was in Samba paddy cultivation compared to 21 percent for owner-operators. In 1965-66 tenants had 7 percent of their gross paddy area in Samba while owner-operators had 28 per- cent of their gross paddy area in Samba paddy cultivation. the same period . tenants had a mi: owned, increasinm smallest farm 51: Thaladi paddy, w] had some Samba p; real income retu) and 1970-71, The lost 25 percent ;‘ Wally which, i, in this group (to The absolut ti“ gives a difi increased iIICOme the large farm 81' real-income from size group Stands though tenants ha on the average, 9 tenant. within t make Up the large Percent of all fa "tree“ in real 113 the same period of time the small farm size group of owner- tenants had a minor increase in proportion of paddy area owned, increasing from 34 to 36 percent. In addition, the smallest farm size group of owner-tenants grew only Kuruvai- Ihaladi paddy, while the small farm size group of owner-tenants had some Samba paddy in both years. As was indicated earlier, real income returns to Samba paddy decreased between 1965-66 and 1970-71. The indication that medium—size owner-tenants lost 25 percent in real value income can be viewed as an anomaly which, in view of the limited number of observations in this group (two), can not be considered very significant. The absolute changes in real income from paddy produc- tion gives a different perspective to the distribution of the increased income as is shown in Table 5.3. While all but the large farm size group on the average received increased real-income from.paddy production, only the very large farm size group stands out as having made large gains. And even though tenants had the largest relative gains, owner-operators, on the average, gained over 15 times as much as the average tenant. Within the owner-operator group, the 9 farmers, who make up the largest farm size category and represent only 6 percent of all farm operators, received 91.8 percent of the increase in real income from paddy production. Thus, the oft-stated hypothesis that the larger farmers were the big gainers from the increased production is definitely true in this case for absolute changes. And as was seen in the above discussion while some farmers had larger relative gains within AVERAGEGMIN HOUSEHO AN Temrre W SIB mess 0th‘Er‘qJerator 2 Ohm-taunt 8 ““3“ L k l a Particular tenur had We! twice as Production as any is considered. The diStribi tion by 0rdinal 91 Table 54 along w: M“ be seen, t1 their Share 0 f tom was the bottom 20 i S d 910ng incur-re prise' These farr At the Sallie s are of tetal Va) 11‘ 114 TABLE 5.3 AVMQ‘IAME INRFALVAHJEPAIIJY INCD’IEPERSAMPIE FARMOPERATOR W IN SJRVEY VILLAGES BEIWEEN 1965-66 AND 1970-71 BY FAR“! SIZE AND TENURE. Temre Farm Size (Acres) ‘kmy' . \kmy Smflu. Ekall Nbdnmn limge :uuge (O—2.5) (2.51—5) (5.01-10) (10.01—20) (20.0l+) Total . r n. t . A; Cummrrxeuemor' 21 232 136 -47 4,068 632 V Mar-tenant 81 -29 -814 -43 1g, Tenant -8 - 6 1,211 42 ‘ Total 19 9 159 —47 4,068 275 a particular tenure and farm size category, the largest farmers had over twice as much relative gain in real income from paddy production as any other farm size group when only farm size is considered. The distribution of net value income from paddy produc- tion by ordinal groups of farm.operator households is given in Table 5.4 along with a general measure of income distribution. As can be seen, the top 20 percent of the households increased their share of total value paddy income slightly from 89.3 to 89.5 percent. The only other group who increased their share was the bottom 20 percent which was a negative type of increase. In both periods, the bottom 20 percent of the farm operators as a group incurred a net loss from the paddy production enter- prise. These farmers did improve in that their loss was less in 1970-71 than in 1965-66. At the same time the top 10 percent increased their share of total value paddy income from 76.3 percent to 77.9 PATTERN INCOME A VILLAGE Househol Top 5 pe Top 10 p Top 20 p Second 2 Third 20 Fourth 2 Bottom 2 ism i Percent And th 58 1 Percent to ironps of houSEh< share of income 1970.71l AS a measu: tram“ rhtio wa Paddy inCQme 5.1110) 1965.66' The G11 19mm to ‘851 : Used as an indie; Production of t test on income 115 TABLE 5.4 PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION OF NET VALUE PADDY INCOME AMONG SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS LNSURVEY VILLAGES: SHARES OF ORDINAL GROUPS, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Households 1965-66 1970-71 Top 5 percent 58.1 60.7 TOp 10 percent 76.3 77.9 1 Top 20 percent 89. 3 89. 5 Second 20 percent 7.6 7.4 1 Third 20 percent 3.4 3.0 J Fourth 20 percent 1.1 .9 Bottom 20 percent -1.4 - .8 Gini ratio .849 .851 percent. And the tOp 5 percent increased their share from 58.1 percent to 60.7 percent. Thus, while the tOp ordinal groups of households received a very high proportion cf the total income from paddy production in 1965-66, the share of income for the tOp ordinal groups increased in 1970-71. As a measure of inequality, the Gini ratio or concen- tration ratio was computed for the distribution of net value paddy income among farm operators for both 1970-71 and 1965-66. The Gini ratio increased slightly from .849 in 1965-66 to .851 in 1970-71. Thus, if the Gini ratio is used as an indicator of income inequality, the increased production of paddy would appear to have had almost no effect on income distribution among farm operators. Real Value Income 0mm Labor The above 0 production with f prise. Here, the is added to the i at the total valr it is net income 0f owner-operator for tenants. AS will be heme“ farm size Supplied by farm contributiOn of : tenure as is Show basis, the Value smaller farm Sizm area. The Value fication is also on the aVerage h, the value per ac; owner~operat0r tributed no th3 of Paddy 116 Real Value Income From Paddy Production Including Value of Own Labor The above discussion measured net income from paddy production with family labor imputed as a cost to the enter- prise. Here, the value of family labor in paddy production is added to the income from the paddy enterprise to arrive at the total value income from paddy production. As such, it is net income to land, labor, and management in the case of owner-operators and net income to labor and management for tenants. As will be seen in Chapter VI, there was variation between farm sizes and tenure in the quantity of labor supplied by farm operator family members. Hence, the value contribution of family labor also varied by farm size and tenure as is shown in Table 5.5. Although on a per acre basis, the value of family labor was higher for succeedingly smaller farm size groups, the total value of family labor was highest for the small farm size group because of increased area. The value of family labor according to tenure classi— fication is also related to farm size. While owner-tenants on the average had the highest total value of family labor, the value per acre was less than for tenants. Within the owner-operator group of farmers, the largest farmers con— tributed no physical labor of their own to the production of paddy. The value of family labor as a proportion of total Paddy income varies greatly according to farm size and tenure r mucky _ _ H a NHmS \ AWQHUEV QNHW EHME NQDCUB .dthhmH Q24 wwlhwmfi .mszmB Q24 WNHW SKEW Hm \WWUEHQH5 NN>mDm 2H qummmbom ”Ohflmmmo zm4h WHAZ‘W ANA Emfih 230 20 ZOHHUDQONA NQQEA 2H NOQQQ NHHE‘A SCAN NEOUZH NUHQS HEW” m. e Mud mqmfla i. ._ 7, ,, ; ll7 .wmnmwma Eoum wwmomso ounoapcw mononucouom Ga mmuomam a Awaa+v AwOH+V Ammanv vaa+v nfiwm+v moa 0 mm we end an m new +v a nos ava «em mna mm 3.2: 9859 mod NON NHH #Gmcm IHwGS Awma+v u o we 0 mm wm hm Houmuomoruwc3o manIOhmH mm 0 mm mm mva Mb HMHOB omH «mm mma em posses ova bed HHH usocmuruoc3o mm 0 me am we uoumuom01uoc30 mowers $-33 Hmuos A+Ho.omv Aomlao.oav Aoasao.mv Amlam.mv Am.mlov wmuoq momma Edflowz HHmEm Macaw mum> muo> Ammuodv ouem Show madame .thObmH 024 mwlhmma .WMDsz QZ¢ mNHm Sm¢m Hm 4mmU¢AQH> NW>MDm 2H QAOEWWDOE MOBflmme Emdh Hflmz Adm“ m.m WQQ WH>mDm ZH QQOENWDOE MOHdmmmO Emfih Nflmzfiw mmm MEOUZH NQQfim H huo> Amouo wm>mam zH anommmsom moaammmo zmam mqmzcm mam mzooza madam 44mm Amsoe mo onamomomm a ma Exam 230 20 oneupoomm spasm zH woman quzam some mzoozH msq<> game m.m MAM¢E family labor did from paddy produ While the percent to total years, and thus Paddy income, ti net real value i effect of increa farmers. Instea the paddy enter; income from famj Percent. Thus, in paddy income, income from pa dd The additi income, this was value of family income from pad: in the Value of in . real income 1 120 family labor did have an effect on the total real income from paddy production as shown in Table 5.7. While the value of family labor added less than 5 percent to total real income for paddy production in both years, and thus did not effect the relative change in total paddy income, the addition of the value of family labor to net real value income to the paddy enterprise did alter the effect of increased production on income to some groups of farmers. Instead of a 7 percent’decline in real income to the paddy enterprise for owner-tenants, the additional income from family labor raised this to a decline of 3 percent. Thus, even with the value of family labor included in.paddy income, owner-tenants still received less real income from paddy production in 1970-71 than in 1965-66. The addition of family labor had the Opposite effect for tenants. Instead of a 23 percent increase in real paddy income, this was reduced to a 17 percent increase because the value of family labor is such a high prOportion of total income from paddy production for tenants, and the increase in the value of family labor was much less than the increase in real income to the enterprise. The only two farm size groups effected by the addition of family labor were the small and medium sized farmers. Total real paddy income was raised from 2 to 4 percent for the small size category of farmers, and the increase in real paddy income for medium farmers was reduced from a r Illlll‘h' — _ T. h 3&0: AmMHOANV muflm 5mm \ mhflcmfi lothmH 924 WWImeH sfiMDZWH Q24 mNHm 2m NW5mDm 2H qummmbom MOHflmmmo SM‘M HQQEQm mmm momdq 230 MO NDHN> QZHQDHUZH WEOUZH NQQ Qflmm N. um. mummh—U 121 .eoumwma some momcmno assesses mommnuqmumm ch mmusmflmn .m.a nouns“ men an cmuaflmmom Awaa+v Awom+v Aw HIV Awm+v Aww+v Awm+v mem.~ mmmram . . n Hence Assa+v mam m Hoo m can mom mom s F®H “damn”? ism .v New N omm mmn . o Nmm pcmnopiuoaso Asma+c was N m m ommrs mmmivw mmwrm mmm.m m-.~ mam moumnmaounmszo maeiosma omo.m mmH.om smmim mmmrm can own Hmuoe mam Hamid mmm mom panama vmht mmmtm cam Ohm uflmamulhwn3o mam a mmalom emm.m ~ea.m mmm.a 5mm nonmummorumsso omumoma Hauoe A+Ho.omv Aomaflo.oav Aoauao.mv Amuamtmv Am.miov momma omumq Edflcmz Hamem Hamfim >Ho> muw> Amouomv onam Enmm ounces .thOhmH 02¢ wwlmmmH ~WMDZWB 92¢ MNHm Emflh Hm .mNU NH>MDm ZH afiommmbom MOBdmmmO zmdm mam2 UZHQDQUZH HEOOZH NOde ho MDH¢> Qr paddy. Secondly, and more importantly, from the .nt of total production and income, it measures in one cash income source which may be available to rers to invest in cash inputs for paddy production. :1 of purchased inputs is of particular importance a large proportion of purchased inputs is in the chemical fertilizers which are assumed to have a 'ant effect on yields and, in turn, income from 'oduction. Net cash income from paddy production is, y, dependent on the value of paddy sales less cash Between 1965-66 and 1970-71 the total value of 1es from all paddy craps increased 68 percent as shown in Table 5 increase in valu along with an 11 for Thaladi . TOTAL VALUE SAMPLE FARM — r 124 shown in Table 5.9. This was the result of an 87 percent increase in value of paddy sales for the Kuruvai paddy crop along with an 11 percent increase for Samba and 88 percent for Thaladi. TABLE 5.9 TOTAL VALUE OF PADDY SALES AND SOURCE OF CHANGE FOR SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY CROP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Year Paddy Crop Kuruvai Samba lThaladi A11 Paddy Crops Rupees 1965-66 154,539 86,362 96,940 337,841 1970—71 289,102 95,654 182,445 567,201 Percent Change +87% +11% +88% +68% Source of change in value of paddy sales: Quantity +48% —20% +43% +29% Price +39% +31% +45% +39% Changes in the price of paddy made up a large component of the increase in total value of paddy sales. While the quantity of paddy sold increased 29 percent, the total value Of paddy sales increased 68 percent. The difference, 39 percent, was the result of price increases. This price effect was most for Thaladi with 45 percent. At least part of the reason why the price effect was somewhat higher for Thaladi than Kuruvai, which had a 39 percent price effect, was a tendenCy for more farmers in 1970—71 to store part of the Thaladi paddy he was stored for : resources to in‘ inmediately afte tive price effe< increase in valr 0f Samba paddy : The Pr0pO] for all farm-Si; Table 5.10. The than large farm: farm groups inc: increased 2 perc farmers Would 5% 3129-- While owr Proportion of Se heme“ and fr paddy 3°“ by 26 largest relative to their teflure I Which d —7——I___ 125 Thaladi paddy harvest for later sales. Less Kuruvai paddy was stored for future sales because of the demand for cash resources to invest in cash inputs for Thaladi production immediately after the Kuruvai harvest. The 31 percent posi, tive price effect for Samba paddy sales provided an 11 percent increase in value of Samba paddy sold even though the quantity of Samba paddy sold decreased 20 percent. The proportion of net retained paddy sold increased for all farm-size groups and tenure categories as shown in Table 5.10. The proportion increased more for small farms than large farms. While the proportion for the two small farm groups increased 11 percent, the largest farm category increased 2 percent. Most of the larger increase for small farmers would appear to be due to tenure rather than farm size. While owner-operators, on the average, increased their proportion of sales by 4 percent, owner-tenants increased 7 percent and full tenants increased their proportion of paddy sold by 26 percent. The reason for tenants having the largest relative increase in proportion of paddy sold is due to their tenure arrangements. Paying a fixed quantity of harvest, which did not change between the two periods, any increases in yield went to the tenant. Assuming there would not be too much change in quantities consumed, the tenants would therefore be able to sell a larger proportion of net retained paddy with increased production. The net cash income per acre from paddy production had wide variation between types of tenure and between crops as ATOHOKC mNflm Ewen \ OHSfiOB .thObmH 02¢ wmlmwmd emszmH QZS WNHW zmfim Hm sWNUTQQH> Mmbmbm 2H WMOHRDHMHNO ENE flaw MOM MHQQANAH QNZHANHMHN BN2 .HO ZOHHNHOAHONHAH AN Wen madam MODERN .HTHOH Odom mqmmfi 126 .owummma Scum moocmzo oumofiocfl mononpcoumm aw woodman b .Hooma on mucosamo osflxisa mo opam> one .ocmH twosome Mo mnocso .monoaocmH on mucosaom mo o5ao> on» mwoa soauosooum mo wsHm> Houou map ma moose vocfiouou no: mo woao>m wm+v Awm+v Awm+v AWHH+V QAWHH+V AWmMM Am§m n.m> H.wn H.nm H.mv ommuo>¢ AWWWMW m.om H.ma H.sm humans + Ammow H.vm H.vm n.am ucmcousuocso AW¢+V . om H. I m.Nw N.nm b mu m h an 0 me HOUMHGQOIHoGBO Helonma m.mn «.mw m.Nn m.mm v.am h.mm ommuo>m N.nm mHHm vnwm v.0m panama H.mm m.mn m me m.mv ucmcopruocso N.mn «.mm m.mn 0 mm o.mn o.mm youmHoQOIHocso I unwound Ir: mmtmmma mafia: $8.03 Sarge: 82:5 3-3.8 3.3: i wanna omuoq assoc: Hamfim Hamfim >no> muo> Amouofiv onam Ehmm onscme ulllllllllllllllllllr .Hsrosma oza mmimwma .MMDZme n24 mNHm Emma em .mmomq mmoeammmo seam seesaw mom «woods omzHaemm smz mo onsmomomm illllllllllllllill QH> wm>mom ZH a ma mMQ NW>NDW 2H TENTH NHAEQW 20 momU Hafidm mUdm mom mmod mmm mSOUZH MmfiU BN2 02¢ .NWZNNNN EWTO QQHOH .WNHTT HTHOB Hi—ruom MH‘HmJWH 128 me mHi mm mmH om or me OMH oEooaH ammo poz me mm HHH vnH we me am mm monsooxo nmmo Hobos mum no va mom NmH mm mm oHN moHom hoomm HUMHch mmm mm: me: now va H mm HHN oEoocH ammo pwz owH pm me me mm «m «a hm momcomxo ammo ku09 man mm «m mmv hum mm mm mmm meow moomm mQEmm HHm hm mmH nHv mmH mH mm mum oEoocH ammo uoz mnH NHH mmH pom om ow Nb MQH momcomxo sumo Houos mmv mmH nmm vmo mmm mp mmH ohm moHom hound HM>SH5M ow.msm meuwm unmade panama nonmuomo maummfl ucmmwafl unmade Honouooo HH¢ tnmczo inocso HHm twocso inocso mono moose HenchmH mmamme .HsiosmH oza meumomH .mmpzms mm .mmoaqu> sm>mom zH mamas seesaw 20 some woman scam mom mmu< mam msoozH ammo smz oza .mmzmmxm mmau dance .mmqmm eases HH.m WAM£B 129 wmm EH «.3 mm mmm N: mwm now «S a elm. m2 m3 man 34 mm a: 3 +3 8 m8 m3 as an omm 2: Na 3- o mmm m3 3 8m ms 5 Na sma a: man «a 5 3m Rm omm 2a m3 8 in :3 8a a: a: «3 8 m3 mm as. d.” omm Nd. omm mam woodman: Among oNHm 6mm HunchmH 380$ oNHw EHmm wwlmme .thohma Q22 mwrmwaH .mNHm Em...»— >m .mg Em ZH gm Bazomgwammgmomgmwmmegwgfing .mmzmmxmgg .amé NH.m Mg The tot farmers in b0 and 1970-71 a a 73 percent percent decre in cash incom The 48 duction was n tYPeS in eith the smallest gain with a 5 farm size gro aInount from p “‘0“ in 1970- the Smfllle s t largest rElat with a 191 pe of 50 PErCent 1”crease in P In and rather minor 130 The total cash income from paddy production for all farmers in both villages increased 48 percent between 1965-66 and 1970-71 as shown in Table 5.13. This is the result of a 73 percent increase in cash income from Kuruvai paddy, a 5 percent decrease from Samba paddy, and a 56 percent increase in cash income from Thaladi paddy. The 48 percent increase in cash income from paddy pro- duction was not shared equally by all farm sizes and tenure types in either absolute or relative terms. By farm size, the smallest group of farmers made the largest average relative gain with a 57 percent increase. But within the smallest farm size group, the tenants, on the average lost a minor amount from paddy production in 1965-66 and lost slightly more in 1970—71.34 In spite of the increased cash losses by the smallest tenants, tenants, on the average, had the largest relative gains in cash income from paddy production with a 191 percent increase compared to an average increase of 50 percent for owner-Operators and only a 7 percent increase in paddy cash income for owner-tenants. In an absolute sense, the increases in cash income were rather minor except for the largest owner-operators. While 34The fact that some farmers lose cash income from paddy production is not too surprising in light of the importance of rice in their diets. What it generally means is these farmers are paying for some of their cash expenses In paddy production from other cash income sources in order to obtain enough paddy for their own consumption. .thOhmH 024 molmmmfl .HMDZHH QZ< NNHm EMTN Mm \WNU WH>MDm ZH QHOEWWDOE MOBfiMHAO SMdh Nflmfidm mmm ZOHBUDQONQ NQQTQ SOME MEOUZH EWTU BN2 Minulm finds-H. .wmlmme Eoum momsmno oumoHoGH monotonouom ca mousmam . . m 131 Awmv +V Awwm+v Awmmwv Awnmwv Ammm+v mfiwnm+v omm.~ mew hm who v Hmm m vhm mm ommuo>¢ AWHmH+V . no ome H He er unmade Awe +v . mHv mmm m Hmm mm ucmcoulnoczo Awom+v . . mmm.v mnm.n~ mam a mmm N moo.~ mm uouaummonuocso Heroan mmm.H amo.nH Hmw.m omm.H mom mm ommno>m mm vhv. mm mHI unmade mmm . mHn.N mmm mm wcocwuluoc3o omm.m smm.sfl Ham m moH N mas.a ms Honmsmmouuaczo aiirum mmrmmmH Immcno>¢ A+Ho.omv AomlHo.0Hv ACHtHo.mV AmuHm.NV Am.mlov mound momma Edeoz HHMEm HHmEm muo> muo> monomv onem sham menace .thohmH 02¢ mmlmme .MMDZWB 02¢ WNHm SMflm Mm ~mWU¢AQH> Mm>mDm ZH qummmbom moadmmmo EMdm mandm mmm ZOHBUDDOMh woafim SOME MEOUZH mmfio BN2 MH.m mflmda tenants had t lute change 1' than the 26 1 of minor impc increase for 9,589 rupee a for the large who represent percent of ti in the two vj tion of tOta] farmers from The abs ftimers is e\ incomes are c' Changes in re largest farm in Cash 1mm“ thrillers haVir prOduCtiOn . had a 5 Peres fathers 313801 In tems 0 f i PerCent dECrp tenantS as a lIlCOme compa] 132 tenants had the largest relative increase, the average abso— lute change in cash income was only 44 rupees which was more than the 26 rupee average increase for owner-tenants but was of minor importance compared to the 1,652 rupee average increase for owner-operators. This was mostly due to the 9,589 rupee average increase in cash income per household for the largest farmers. In fact, these 9 largest farmers who represent 6 percent of all farm operators received 81.9 E percent of the increase in cash income from paddy production a in the two villages. This caused an increase in the propor- tion of total cash income going to this small group of farmers from 72 percent in 1965—66 to 75 percent in 1970—71. The absolute gains received by the group of largest farmers is even more striking when the 1970—71 average cash incomes are deflated as shown in Table 5.14 to reflect changes in real cash income. In real terms, the group of largest farm operators received 98.5 percent of the increase in cash income. This was the result of several groups of farmers having a decrease in real cash income from paddy production. In particular, the small farmers on the average had a 5 percent decrease in real cash income, and large farmers absorbed a 1 percent decrease in real cash income. In terms of tenure, the owner-tenants as a group had an 18 percent decrease in real cash income. And even though the tenants as a group had a 126 percent increase in real cash income compared to an average increase of 15 percent for 133 .mmimmmH Scum woodman oumoHoGH momobuouoo CH mousmHma .m.H Houomm opp he owumHmmom AwaH+v AsmH+c “WHtV Awm+c Ammuv bawom+c ems.fi mnm.om mmm.m oHo.N mam Na mmaum>a mmNH+V A mm mHH.H mm mH- panama Amerv aom moo.m cam ms basemurnaaso Ame+v smm.m mam.om mmm.m mmm.m mam.H as noumnooo-omazo assiosma mmm.a swm.sa Hmm.m omm.H mom mm amena>< mm «as am ma- panama mmm mHs.~ mmm mm ucmampnumsso emm.m amm.sa Ham.m eOH.~ mma.H ms nonanmeIuoaso wmumomH wwwmsm mmmnm>a A+Ho.o~c Aomrao.oHv ASHiHo.mv lmle.Nv Am.miov momma mound esHooz HHmEm HHoEm muo> muo> Ammo—Judi ONHMW EHdrm OHSSOH. .HbthmH 02¢ mwlmmma aHMDZmB 02¢ WNHW EMfim Mm .mmw Mm>mbm ZH Odommmbom MOBdmmmO 2m4m mqm2¢m mmm ZOHBODaomm WQQ¢A 20mm MEOUZH mmfio fl amass ashes: Hausa Hngm suw> OHDGNH .Hsuoan oza monmmmH .mmszms 024 swam seam mm mggawgmggggmgmgggmagag mH.m g 138 .mouom moo. cos» mmmq m .moHnmuomo> Em .moonfl HE Canon 800ng .002an 58900 moans...“ mmouo ”850$ 355 as Bums.» 083 83% o pogo Tam hHHomaHm confine..." macho HHOU Cosme one .mcmqmn 52.6000 Home Em oNHdE .Emum meHn .Eoum one page find moan £585 3.8.6 88a mm. mm. «N. om. mm. oH. em. 3. 38 no I I 8. No I | .8. Reno Ludo eo . oH . mo . Ho . mo . oH . «o . I wooHom mo. I mo. mo. mo. I mo. «.0. macho HAO Ho. 3. Ho. I I I I I 33.3 can. 3. I mo. mm. om. I Hm. Hv. wcHMHchoom mug mm. om. 3.. on. mv. om.. mo. mo. 38. No I no I I I I I mmouu H050 oH . I mH . NH . «o . I oo . I mmOHom «H. mm. mH. I Hm. mm. mm. vo. mmouo H5 «0. I no. Ho. no I I Ho. muaaw coup. so . mm . 3 . B . om . mm . mm . 8 . manhood uBMHooOIHmEG om.~ Hm.mH 2H 3H NH VH. Hod No.3 mm. mm.m o~.H om. H309 mo. R. mH. I I Ho. mo. me. 8. I I Ho. undone Hofio vo. I B. «H. oH. Ho. mo. mo. NH. «H. oH. Ho. 33% NH. mm. «v. «H. on. Ho. NH. 2... we. VH. om. Ho. OmnHWHo HHo mm. om.~ mm. Hm. om. mo. mm. 86 mm. Hm. ow. mo. nmuHHE cone RH om.oH om. 21H I mo. EHN mo.mH I om.m I 3. mmfimumoopm uoumndmohoéé ommugm A+Ho.o~v AoNrHooHv 8H1Ho.mv AmiHmNo $.mnov conga A+Ho.o~v AomlHooHv 8H:Ho.fl AmnHmNo Amdtoo wound owns SHE: HHMEm HHmcm mmudH mound SHE: HHdew Ham a08> whoa“ an; I boxy moons 3H.“ EHmm .HslohmH $305 31.8 enmm .ooumomH moan. ago .8309 .thObmH 02¢ wwlmwmd 4mg QZ< MNHm Eh Wm .343.wa Em a 39.5302 mgémmmd E 5% mmnH mug gab .mO g 5H .m Mafia. 139 other crOps compared to either tenant group Of farmers. This is due to two factors. First, owner-Operators as a group had a larger proportion of their paddy land in Samba paddy produc- tion. Thus, they were able to grow more summer crOps. Secondly, they had a much larger area Of tree fruit crOps (bananas, coconuts, and mangoes). Within the owner-Operator groups, by far the largest average area Of other crOps was Operated by the largest farm size group. Again, the reason for this is the fact that they had large areas under Samba production. And they also owned most of the area under tree fruits. In 1970—71 the largest owner-operators owned 71 percent of the area under tree fruits, and in 1965—66 they owned 75 percent Of the area under tree fruits. 35 The average real value income per household from other crops decreased 14 percent between 1965-66 and 1970-71 as shown in Table 5.18. The fact that real income declined less than total area under other crOps is due tO a higher proportion of higher valued crOps in 1970—71 compared to 1965-66. In particular, the average total value Of production for tree fruits was 1,084 rupees per acre in 1970-71 and 837 rupees per acre in 1965-66 as indicated in Table 5.19. This compares 35An analysis Of the costs of production is not included here because the total costs Of production decreased total value of production by only 14 percent in both years. And most of the cost of production was in the form Of labor which averaged 2.12 rupees per day in 1965-66 and 2.53 rupees per day in 1970-71. The effect Of changes in employment for other crOps is included in Chapter VI. .oormomH Scum moosmso ouMOfiocH mononucmumo sH wousmHmn .m.H uouumm one an omuaHmaam i w Hue Aw~m+v vamuv Awn+v bawwmro vawmw AHmo.m mmv mmH mm Hm oomum>4 Amwm+v vnH om mm panama Ame no mo emH om mm usmcouiuocao Awmwmo Hho.m one moH Hom om Houmnomoruocso OHhroomH 0 M HHm mmo.m mom oem mo oq ommuo>¢ Hm NMH mm «N nausea he vHH mm «H ucocouruocso who mmo.m mom «we now Ho Honeymoonuoczo woumomH larrtnnrtrrslluntil:IttartarInstrmoooomIIIIIIIIslarrnrsluanutusuIIIInns omnum>¢ A+Ho.omo Aotho.oHo AoHrHo.mo Amer.~V Am.~|oo momma ooumq Eswooz HHmam HHoam >uo> hump “monomv oNHm such ounces .HsrosaH O24 ooummmH .mmozma Oza muHm ammo um .mmcaan> sm>msm 2H decreases mosammmo seam seesaw mmm mmomo sumac some mzoozH moqa> name mH.m mqmda IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:___________________________________________________________—__————__—"""'r 141 to an average total value for foodgrains of 40 rupees per acre in 1970—71 and 35 rupees in 1965—66. In total, the average value of production per acre for other crops increased 55 percent at current prices or an increase of 19 percent in real terms. TABLE 5.19 TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTION AND VALUE OF PRODUCTION PER ACRE FROM OTHER CROPS FOR SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, 1965-66 AND 1970—71. Cropsa Total Value Value of Production of Production Per Acre 1965-66 I 1970~7l 1965—66’ T 1970—71 Rupees Foodgrains 9,622 6,125 50 51 Tree fruits 30,800 40,890 837 1,084 Oil crops 2,053 2,754 118 180 Spices 4,808 6,404 877 686 Other crops 4,200 1,011 79819 269 Total 51,483 57,184 199 308 a The crops included in each category is given in Table 5.17. b The reason for the much higher value per acre for other crops in 1965—66 is because of 2.00 acres of cotton, a much higher valued crop. in this category in 1965—66 where there was none in 1970-71. While the real income for the total of all farms decre- ased 14 percent between 1965—66 and l970—7l, there was varia— tion between classifications of farms in the direction and extent of change in real income. When the farms are grouped by tenure, owner-operators and owner-tenants incurred a decrease in real-value income of 15 and 4 percent, respectively while tenants had a 10 percent increase. fa in ac t? 11 — W 142 According to farm size, two groups of farmers had increases in real value income from other crops, namely, the small and large farmers. This was primarily due to larger relative increases than other farm size groups in tree fruit area and spices which had the highest value of production per acre of other crops. The other farm size groups had a decrease in real value income with the medium size farmer having the most decrease with 54 percent. As was the case with paddy production, the largest farmers had a very high proportion of the total real value income from other crops. This is due to both the much higher acreage of other crops for this group than other farmers and because they owned most of the tree fruit area which had higher value of production per acre than other crops except for spices in 1965—66. But the total area under spices was quite minor compared to total tree fruit area. In spite of the 15 percent decrease in real income to the largest farmers, the absolute proportion of real income received by the group remained nearly the same at 71 percent in 1970—71 compared to 72 percent in 1965—66. Thus, in absolute terms the largest farmers received most of the income from other crops although their relative decrease in income from other crops was slightly more than the average for all other farms. The cash income from other crops shown in Table 5.20 is another cash resource which could potentially be used for invest- ment in cash inputs for paddy production. At current prices, all tenure types had an average increase in cash income from other crops. By farm size, two groups of farmers, 143 .wolmmma Eoum mmmsmnu unsuspaw mononusmumm ca mmuawamm Amma+v mam AMMMWM “wewwmv iwmv-l raH¢+v m.»m-s Am~m+v «a oaa ma mmmum>< we Amma+v mvm mm mm assume we I Amoa+v m om om ucmswpuumcso mam mmm.m vam ama mew m HoumquOIHmcso Hunchma am~ msa.m mad sea as ON momum>< am «we sw we ucmcme ov . m I om ma usmswunuoszo mom mma m mad Nov moe an Houmummouuoszo ooumwma nauulluunlnnnllunllun 11111111 auunmmmm9MIanlulnnluun1111111111: 111111 In: umduoad A+Ho.o~v Aomnao.oav _ aoauao.mv Amnammwv Am.~|ov umumn «mung suave: Hausa Hamew mum> hum> Amwuodv muflm sham whence .Hsnosma aza omumoma .mmazme aza muum such an .mmuaqu> wm>mom 2H anommmoom moeammmo sass mqmzam mum mmomo sumac some mzoqu mmao om.m mnm<9 —_i—m 144 very small and medium, had a decrease in cash income from other crops. Except for these two groups, all other groups of farmers, on the average, had more cash income from other crops which could potentially be available for investment in cash inputs for paddy production. When deflated by the change in consumer price level to reflect changes in real cash income, the total real cash income from other crops decreased 14 percent as shown in Table 5.21. As was the case for real value cash income, tenants as a group and the small and large farmers had an increase in real cash income instead of a decrease for other groups of farmers for the same reasons discussed earlier. Since a larger proportion of the production was consumed rather than sold for the small farmers, the proportion of total real cash income received by the largest farmers was higher than for real value income. While the proportion of real value income received by the largest farmers was about 71 percent, the proportion of total real cash income received by these same farmers was 76 percent for both years. In total, the income from other crops decreased between the two periods primarily because of a decrease in summer crop area. While a few groups of farmers had a rela- tive increase in income from other crops, the largest farmers received most of the income in both years because of much larger area and a higher proportion of higher valued crops. 145 . n m H Houomw on» an pwumamwom resale Aaaaue Ammoa+v Ascent Amm+s Awmmnv ‘1: «mm maa.m mam was mm ma mama Ammm+v sma 0>¢ mm on an “small a panama mm I we mm cm I Amwa-c . u can “maze mas mas ~ New «ma mas a Houmumaoaumaso MHBIOFmH mmm moa.m mad Hmm m5 om wmmnw>4 mm vva hm ma panama ow . m 1 mm ma usmcwunumszo mmm mod n mad mow moe vm HoumquOIumszo I 11111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlnmmeQMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIluau mmamwma mmmum>¢ A+Ho.omv Aomido.oav A0H1H0.mv Amlam.mv Am.mlov mmumfl momma Edwvmz HHmEm Hamfim muu> aum> Ammuomv muwm such whence .Hnloama nza moummma .mmozme oza mNHm zmam mm .mmuaqqu> Wm>m9m 2H Gnommmbom moadmmmo 2m 0mg 5MB: dug OHM—am > 1 “manna”. 03mm Emmy 0.988 $12.3 92 8:32 .953 92 mam 25E am mass «Hub zo momma aamaansoamua_zu omaoumzm .muaauHs,umsmsm_zH mquosmmsomxmoaammmo.zmas”mqmzam so mmmzaz MN.m g 149 a sociological standpoint, working as an agricultural laborer is considered an inferior occupation. Secondly, this group of farmers had the least income from paddy production and probably did not have other alternative employment to augment the income from their farm Operations. The real value income from agricultural labor on other farms is indicated in Table 5.24. The average real value m income per household from this source increased 2 percent and 10 percent for the smallest group of farmers and small group of farmers, respectively. Along tenure classifications, the owner-Operators had a decrease of 19 percent while owner- tenants had nearly the same income in both years with a 2 percent decrease. Tenants, on the other hand, had a 33 per- cent increase in income from agricultural labor on other farms, reflecting an increase in the number of labor days for this group. Since most of the wages received for labor on other farms was in kind (paddy), the cash income from this income source was nominal as shown in Table 5.25. In 1965-66 only 14 percent of the wages received was cash. This increased to 22 percent in 1970-71. Thus, the cash income from agricul- tural labor on other farms increased more than the value income. At current prices, it increased 57 percent. When deflated to reflect real increases in income, it increased 21 percent. In summary, agricultural labor on other farms was a source of income only for the smaller farmers. As such, it vNom MHJHMNANL.» 150 .moummma scum momsmno mum0fiosw mononucmumm Ga mmusmwm n m.a nouomu 0:» an omumaumom “woa+v Lam +V Ammomv o o 0 mm one monum>¢ AaMMMv o «as cad panama .mmsuo 0 ms mos unmamuuumaso AwWMIV o o o o mma uoumquOIumsso manlohma mm o o o om ova 0mmu0>4 maa o no sma panama Hm o Hm mm usmsouluwszo am 0 o o o wma Houmuooonuosso w outmoma Ilnwslltnnnunuuusluaunuunuuuunnlnmmo omtnuuuulunnlnnuunlluun1111111111 Innmumuosa l+ao.o~c lom:ao.oac loasao.ms Am-Hm.~. Am.~-oe comma «mung sowomz Hausa Hausa hwmb wuo> Ammuodv wuwm sham masque .Hsuosma oza mmnmoma .mmozma oza munm amen rm .mmoaqua> smsmom zH ooommmoom moeammmo swam mqmzem mum mamas «mayo 20 woman namoeqoonoa some mzoqu moq<> seam vm.m mqmdfi .m.a Houomm was an omumauwo a .wmlmme Eouw momcono wumoflocfi mononucmumm cw monomwmm .-.. ..-|I:l!lll|lllllll llllllllllllllllll Awam+v Awmm+v vaa+v as o o o as «N mmmuw>¢ Awmm+v mm 0 mm mm panama “mo v an o as «a ucmcmuuumczo Awe v as o o o o as uoumumoouumcso bawsHm> mmu Hauonma Awnm+v Awss+v mfiwmv+v mm o o 0 mm Hm wmnuw>< Awam+v mm 0 on mv ucmcwa Awsm+v 11 «a o «a ma usmswulumczo :4 Amsm+v .1 «a o o o 0 mm AHOpMMwQOIHwCBO Ammofium ucwuusov annonma as o o 0 ma Hm wmwuo>a an 0 ma mm panama HA 0 OH «H usasouuuoszo as o o o o as uoumumoouuwczo mwumwma IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mmwmsmllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIII . lllllllllllllllllll Aomlao oav momma Amonosi ouflw Eumm masque .thOhmH 02¢ mmlmwma .WMDZMB 02¢ MNHm Sm Nm>mbm zH QAOmmeom moammmmo Eadm mqmz¢m mum mzmdm mmmfio ZO mom o H o N o o o o N o Awe magma H H o m H H H o m H AHHV Essen: o o m mH m o o a mH s lave HHaam N H H aH a N H H mH m lose HHmem suw> wNHm Snob m a m em mH m N m mm mH H o 4 MH m H o N NH m lmvmwmwmwmwawe H o H 0H m H o N NH m Ammo pamamunuoazo H a H HH m H N H OH N m ANS Hovmgumng OE Ema Hug monm monm oHE no.3 33 memm monm onm gonzo: possum pooo MHHE nag goons: possum boom VHHHE quEHsom HanosmH mmummmH 2:30an g mmlmme ammDZmB Q24. mNHm. gm Mm gm "H.596“ EBHDUE ED Egan—ROWE gagmmgggmagw hog owlm an. mu-O Mu Rawhflu‘r-L 153 .mooum some cH moHozwmoo; nououom012umm mo Hones: muooausH ommsusmnmo_ca monomamo m N w MN NH N N N NN NH fies H38. 1 o H o N o o o o o «my monuH.msy> H H o N o o o o N o va omHMH o o N mH H H H o N H AHHV .538. N H H N o o 1. NH N a: 12m 3 N N H H NH N at H36 00> 33 and N a N «N NH N N N NN NH H38. H o 4 NH N H c N NH N Games passe H o H S o H o N NH N ANNV €531.23 H a H HH N H N H OH N MANN. Bang 03 ES and 8H8 8H8 ohm ES 83 8H3. «.03 who EH85: 8952 £8 052 agave Fog 832 £80 5H2 passages HunchmH . monmme .thOth 944 wmlmmmfl .E 94¢ MNHm gm Wm 53 mag Egg mag gggfigggaghagag mm...“ an. 154 Those farmers who rented—out land to other farmers were all owner—operators. The total area rented out was 28.75 acres in 1970-71 compared to 28.25 acres in 1965—66. All of this land was located in other villages including the very small farmer who had 1.83 acres rented out. The number of farm operator households hiring out equipment37 for agricultural purposes increased from 15 in 1965 to 18 in 1970-71. The most significant change from the standpoint of income generation was the addition of two ower- operator households who rented out the use of their tractors for the plowing—puddling operation in paddy production. Income from hiring out of equipment increased from 2,153 rupees to 18,036 rupees as shown in Table 5.27. This was due mostly to 15,618 rupees being earned from tractor rental to other farmers. Milk sales was the most important source in 1965-66, contributing 54 percent to the total of other agricultural income. The proportion of income from milk sales was reduced to 34 percent in 1970-71 because of the very large increase in income from equipment hire. Likewise, the proportion of income from land rented decreased from 20 percent in 1965—66 to 12 percent in 1970-71. And the proportion of income from 37The general category of hiring out equipment includes tractor hire, cart hauling, bullock hire, filter point rental, and in one case the rental of livestock for penning (manuring). in.” 155 managing land decreased from 15 percent to 8 percent. Income from goat sales was of minor importance in both years even though there was a sizeable relative increase. TABLE 5.27 TOTAL VALUE OF OTHER AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY SOURCE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Income Source 1965-66 1970-71 1970-71 (Current_prices) (Real Income)a ------------------ Rupees----------—--------- Equipment hire 2,153 18,036 13,874 (+544%)b Milk sales 10,550 13,864 10,665 (+ 1%) Goat sales 152 500 385 (+153%) Rented land 3,870 5,049 3,884 ( 0%) Managing land 2,977 3,285 2,527 (- 15%) Total 19y702 40,734 31,334 (+ 59%) aDeflated by the factor 1.3. bFigures in parentheses indicate changes from 1965-66. Valued at current prices, total value income from other agricultural sources more than doubled between 1965-66 and 1970-71. When deflated to reflect changes in real income, there was a 59 percent increase. This large increase in real income was due entirely to the addition of tractor hire income in 1970-71. Excluding tractor rental there was virtually no change in real income from other agricultural sources. When the real value income from other agricultural income is divided by farm size and tenure on a per household basis, the medium size farmers had more than four times as much as 5 out mane fro: are ru; th< tu fa we la 156 income from these sources than any other group in 1965—66 as shown in Table 5.28. This was due to income from renting out of over 14 acres by a medium sized owner-operator and the managing of about 27 acres by a medium sized owner-tenant. There was not much variation in per household income from other agricultural sources in 1965-66 when the farms are grouped by tenure. In 1970—71 there would not have been much variation in income by tenure either would it not have been for the two farmers who hired out tractors. Without this source, the average owner—operator would have had 151 rupees of real income which was not much higher than what the average owner—tenant or tenant received. In Spite of the additional income from tractor rental for the largest owner—operators, income from other agricul— tural sources was relatively more important to the smaller farmers than the larger farmers because income from paddy was so much lower for the smaller farmers compared to the larger farmers. Cash income from other agricultural sources increased 140 percent at current prices between 1965—66 and 1970—71 as given in Table 5.29. But for most farm operator households, Cash income from these sources can not be considered very important. Excluding the largest farmers, the average income from these other agricultural sources was only about 6 percent as much as from paddy production. However, if only the smallest farmers are considered, this cash income was higher, 157 .mmlmmmH Scum woodman muMOHpsH mononusmumm sH mmHsmHm n .m.H Houumm was an pmuonmom HNmm +o HNN¢+V ANN no Awe +. aHNoHuV mHN «mm.H Hm mom mvH Nb omoum>< Ame +v th o mom «OH panama Ame Iv e mmH NHN H mm mm usmcmuuuosso HwHwH+v mHm Nam.H Hm ohm mmH mm HoumquOIuwsso oHnnowaH mMH 0 mm mmw hMH mm omoum>< NvH o mmH mOH panama mmH Nwm.H on vHH usosoulums3o «NH 0 mm omm omH mm Houmummouuos3o owummmH unlunuuuuutnlluu tttttt 11111 111111 moommmwlsunlls uuuuu I 1111111111111 III: ummum>< H+Ho.omv HomnHo.oHv AOHnHo.mv AmIHm.Nv Hm.~|ov omumq momma EsHomz HHoEm HHoEw huw> mumb Awesome oNHm swam muasoa .HhIObmH 02¢ wonmmmH emmazma 02¢ WNHm 2m wm>mDm 2H qummmDom moadmmmo 2m Aflfim mN.m mflmdfi 2158 .m.H Hououm us» an wouoHuoo a .mwtmOmH scum newsman oumoHocH mononucoumm cH uoHoOHmn Hmmm+v Hwnv+v va+v Hav+v AaOHIO mOH «mmeH Hm mvm NVH mm omouu>< Ham +V NvH O mom mm nausea HmmHsO NHH «mm mm mm ucosouluusso Hahmm+v Own Nmm.H Hm mmH mNH hm uououomouuosso HosoosH Hnou~ AHNIONOH 33H: 33: ASN.3 33+. use: . ovu OHm.H mOH mHN «OH ms mmouo>< Hmem+v me o Ohm HNH assume HmOH+O meH ~NO.H OOH om ucosmuluosso Havm+v Omm OHm.H mOH OON OOH we Honouomonuoszo HuoOHua ucouuoow HNnONOH OOH O mm mmm OMH mm amouo>4 mNH o mmH mm panama NMH va vb vHH unusualumcso NN. o N... «NH oNH NN uouuumoouuofio w OOImOOH .IIIIu'""-ll'l_"|'-"ell:ll-'I.'.III"nl'mvm g8'-"alI'"'|- """""" lu'"'nl""' omnum>¢ H+H0.0~O HONsH0.0HV HOHlHO.mV HmuHm.~v Hm.~nov mound mound asHooz HHmEm HHusw hump muo> Humansv oNHm Eumm sundae .HhIOhmH Qz< mmlmmmH mN.m mqmda NNMDZMB 02¢ WNHm 2m wm>mom 2H DHOmNmDOm moadmmmo SMdh WHQde mmm mmUMDOm A O H M M O O Amy mmumq N o H N o H “HHV ESMUOE N o e N o e Amev HHeam m O NH O O m 0 H mam >HQ> Ammuomv mNHm such eH N NH NH 0 NH lNeHO Hmuoe e o N e o e Acme sesame N o H N o H ANNO namamu-mwmww w Mousse o: N NH a o OH NANNV sesame usmEMonEm usmEMOHmem mmmCHmsm ucwfiumw>GH Hummucoz mmmcstm ucmsumo>sH .HHOMIGOZ HsuosNH NoumeNH .thOhmH QZ< wwlmomd .WMDZWB QZfl mNHw 2m Hm>msm ZH mQHOMMmDOm moadmmmo Eddm mnmfidm ho mmmSDZ om.m WHm4B — y 162 In all cases these were government securities to be held for a specified period of time. This form of savings was probably attributable to the increased paddy production and increased income thereof. All three of the investors were owner— operator households with greater than 10 acres, and two of the investors were in the largest farm size group who had the large increases in income from paddy.39 The total income from nonagricultural sources increased from 38,656 rupees in 1965-66 to 55,073 rupees in 1970-71 as shown in Table 5.31 for a 42 percent increase at current value. When deflated to reflect changes in real income the increase was 10 percent. There was an increase in current value income from all sources with income from nonagricultural employment increasing the most in absolute and relative terms except for income from investments which was not present in 1965—66. When compared to income from paddy production, nonagri- cultural income would appear to be relatively unimportant. Total nonagricultural income was only 13 percent as much as the total value income from paddy production and 17 percent as much as cash income from paddy production. But for parti- cular groups of farm-operators the income from nonagricultural sources was very important. For example, the smallest farm 39In addition, one other very large owner-operator had a sizeable investment in the production of a film. He could not report any income from this venture, however, because the film had not been released at the time of the survey. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII:—_________________________________________________________________====’— 163 operators, on the average, received 264 rupees from nonagricul— tural sources in 1970-71, and 149 rupees in the earlier period as shown in Table 5.32. This was more than four times as much as the average smallest farm operator received in cash income from paddy production. And for tenants as a group, the cash income from nonagricultural sources was over five times as much as from paddy production in 1965—66 and twice as much in 1970—71. TABLE 5.31 TOTAL NONAGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR SAMPLE FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLDS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY SOURCE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Source 1965—66 1970-71 1970—71a (Current Value) (Real Value) Rupees Nonagricultural employment 15,936 28,660 22,046 Businesses 22,720 24,400 18,769 Investments 0 2,013 1,549 Total 38,656 55,073 42,364 aDeflated by the factor 1.3. Although the farm operators with more than 5 acres of land had more income from nonagricultural sources, on the average, than smaller farmers, the distribution of nonagricul- tural income was not nearly as skewed as for income from paddy production. Thus, it had a leveling effect on total income. And as was pointed out earlier, the cash income from this source was of particular importance to the smallest farmers. 164 .M.H HOUUMW 0:“ %Q UTHMHMOQ n .wwlmmmH Eoum memento muMOHOGH mononusoumm CH onDmHm . . m ANoH+O ANNva ANNN+O ANNNIO ANNN+O (Ilmmmmmwmlllz Nam va.H mmm OHw maH mom unmade Awmmlv mm o NVH vm ucmawulnwszo Ham +O on O m mm uoumnomouumczo meH+O . mam OOHlH wmm vmm H OOO mom Awde> Hmwuy QHNIONOH Awmw+v AWH+V AWWHH+V Awe v MAwhh+v omN NHN.H OHN Hoo.H NNH eNN mamum>< Haw 1O mHH O va Oh Hamch ANNN+O wfl O OH VNH HCMGwfllHOE3O ANNN+O . Nos NHN.H QHN New H Nam Nee noumnmdonnoaso HmsHm> unwuusoy HNIONOH NON NNN.H o Nae NNH NNH wamuo>< mNH O Hm mv “emcee mm O m cm unmowunuocso OOm mm¢.H O NON mm» NON uoumummoluwsso ODD\H1/4 WW’mmmH omnuo>¢ A+H0.0NV HONIHO.OHO AOHIHo.mO AmnHm.NO Hm.NIOO mmumq mmumq EsHomz HHme HHme hum> aum> Am0H0 MM>MDm ZH OdommmDOm mos¢dmm0 2M Hmuoa OH+ N.N «ON.Nv N.N ONO.NN mucosH HausuHsoHummcoz + . N . hemH QEOOGH mm O O vmm Hm w O NO HousuHSOHumm Hosuo N + N.N NeN.eH N.N «NH.eH HonNH HmuspHsoHume an N.N NHN.NN H.HH NNH.N¢ moouo Hosuo eH+ H.NN NHN.eeN H.HN omo.NON eoHuoseoeo seems mm mm OWGM£U HMHOB MO HMHOB NO UGOOHOQ unwoumm 05Hd> #GOOHOQ OSHMD MHNIOOOH OOINOOH mousom meoosH smsmom zH .HNIONNH oza NNINNNH .momoom ozoozH mm .mmOeAHH> monommmoom moeammmo seam mousse am om>Hmomm mzoozH mou<> Hams Haeoe mm.m Mflmflfi 167 agricultural sources was due to tractor rental for the plowing- puddling operations in paddy production in the second period. Thus, most of the increase in total income to farm operators can be said to be directly related to or associated with the changes in paddy production. The increases in real value income were not shared equally in an absolute or relative sense by all tenure groups as shown in Table 5.34. While owner-operators increased their total value income by 14 percent, owner~tenanrs had a decrease of 5 percent, and tenants had an increase of 8 percent in real value income. In terms of absolute changes, owner—operators, on the average,increased their real value income by 788 rupees compared to only 61 rupees for the average tenant and a loss of 53 rupees for owner-tenants. Paddy production contributed most of the value income for both owner-operators and owner-tenants with over 70 per— cent of total income from this source. Tenants, on the other hand, received less than half of their income from paddy production. In 1965-66, paddy production represented 43 percent in 1970-71. The other sources of income except for other crOps were much more important for tenants than the other tenure groups. The level of total value income also varied considerably between tenure types. The average owner-operators had five times as much total value income as owner—tenants in 1965-66 and nearly 6 times as much in 1970-71. With the least income 0f the three tenure types, the average tenant had only about one-eighth as much real value income as owner-operators. .OOImOOH Scum mousse m>HumHmmo sound CH mousmHmn .N.H sonata map so emuNHumom .OOINOOH Scum mmocmno musHOQO mumoHOsH mHmmnu 168 ANN+O NNN UANNIO eNo.H olNeH+O NNN.N msooaH msHN>,nmz O O mm xmu oEoosH HonouHuoHumm AHNO was ANNIO eNo.H AeowO HHe.N esooeH msHm> Hmuoe ANNIO Na AH O eN ANN.O NNN maooaH HmusuHaUHuumaoz 1N O NNH AeNuO NNH ANNHO NHN msooaH HtuansoHumm umauo AhmO omH AN IO mo AmHIO Os HOQMH HouduHsoHHm< AN O eN AN -O Ne ANOHIO NNN moons guano lNNO NNN ANNiO NNN nANNNO ONN.e eoHnoseoue mmmmmln NHNIONNH NNN NHH.H mmm.m meoooH oSHm> umz MNO O . mm xmu mEoosH HousuHSOHumd mNH NHH H NOO.m oeoocH 05Hm> Hobos meH mm com mEoocH HMHOOHOOHHomcoz mHH mmH «NH oEoocH HousuHooHHmm Hmzpo Hm Hm em Hoan HousuHOUHumm NHm he who mmouo umsuo was mHN.v noHuoooono moose mmuaem NNINNNH #GMCO a g usmcmuauocso ~ Hououmooluocso mousom mEoosH wammmhmw MMMmWwImOOH .MMDZWB Mm .mombow HSOUZH Mm .mflOflHHH> mbom MOBdmme zm Hfimm vm.m mqmflfl 169 Even more dramatic differences in the level of income appear when the farm operators are divided by farm size as given in Table 5.35. The farm operators in the smallest group had less than 3 percent as much value income in each year as farm operators in the largest farm size group. The largest farm operators also had the most relative increase with 18 percent greater real value income in 1970—71 than in . 1965-66. The small size group of farm-operators had the least increase in total real value income with 1 percent while the medium and large farm operators had 6 percent average increases,and the very small farm operators increased their average income by 8 percent. The agricultural income tax which is assessed according to area owned for those individuals owning more than 7.5 acres, had a negligible effect on total value income. The average largest farm operator paid only 0.8 percent of total income to this tax, up slightly from the 0.6 percent level in 1965—66. Thus, this level of taxation had almost no effect on the distribution of income. The addition of the other sources of income to the value income from paddy production had a leveling effect on total value income as shown in Table 5.36. The Gini ratio was reduced from slightly above 0.8 in both years when only paddy production was considered to 0.732 in 1965—66 and 0.742 in 1970-71. Since most of the income changes for other sources .NmuNOOH poem mmmemau m>HumHmmo .OOINOOH spam memento BsHomnm Bong mommfisohmm cH madman .N.H tomato man an OmumHmmom 1]. OANNH+O NNO ON olNN+O NHN.N olNO+O HON.O olNH+O NHN.H olNO+O HON menoaH maHm> mmz NON ON O O O xmu 9505 HmhfiHooHume MNNNOW OOOAON MNNNO N4N.N leNO HON.O AN O NHN.H ANN O HON manuaH msHm> Hmuoe NNN: «NH H NNNO NNN ANNNO OHN SOTO NOH ONO NON 85053 FH HMHHHUHOUH oz ANONHO NNN.H ANN O HO laeuO NON AN O NOH AOHIO NN maooaH HmuamHsoHtmm “memo O O O O O O 1N O ON AN O ONH Hoan HmuauHaoHuma leNNuO HNO.N ANOHO ONO lNNHIO NNH AN O NO AOIO HN moose Hmemo ANNOOO NNN.ON ANNIO NON.N ANOHO HOO.N AONO OeN nlNNO NON tonusOoud saute mHNIONNH nu NOH.NN NNN.N NHN.O NON.H NON menueH msHm> mmz OOH N O O O xmu N T505." HmNBHHsUHuma . OOH OON.NN ONN.O NHN.O NON.H NON meerHH maHm> Hmmoe O NOO.H O ONO NNH OOH msmmce HmnsuHOoH “sees O O NN NNN NNH ON 089: HmuOuHaoHuOm “memo O O O O ON NOH Hoan HmeOnHOOHNma OH NNN.N NON OON NO ON moons “memo ON NOH.ON NNN.N NNN.N OHN OON aoHuosaoum Nmmmm NNINNOH 0));“151.” A+HO.ONO AONIHO.OHO AOH-HO.NO lNuHN.NO 1N.N-OO momma sum> moumH esaemz HHmsm HHmsN Nnm> monsom masocH 880$ 036 Emma .mmuaHHH> .thOhmH DZHH mwlmmmH emNHm Em Wm Em ZH QHOmemDOm ”HQHENHO gm mm.m g .mumsow OZOOZH mm Nassau mam mzoNzH Egg 170 .8133 6.0 mmmgt 93380 .OOINOOH Noam $330 338% 333 gamma 5 mun—ages .N.H Baud m5 3 83GB.» ANNH+O NNN. 0 SN NN meet NHN.N use: HON... 0:3 NHN.H use: HON means mngumz NN O O O ea.» mum . 9505 Hun—333% MONNw «WNNN Mmmmw mmwe ANONO HON... AN O NHN.H 3N O HON 859a 88> H38 ANNNO OHN El NNH SNO NON 858.. HMHBHOUH.§ ANNNHO NNN.H 6N O HN ONTO NNN .N O NOH 31 NN 885 O O O O O O s O N l O H88 .8... 5.. u N N ONH .53 88538 mewew MMMHMN EHO ONO. ANNHnO NNH G O NO 81 HN moot HmOno SNIO NON N SOHO HOO.N 8NO OON nlNNO NON eofluepdmfiml mHNuONNH s s NNH NN NNN N NHNJ NON.H NON 059: mOHN... umz NNH N O O O .3 989: HNNBHBHNON . HNOOH NONHNN «NNO OHN... NON.H NON 809: 3H9 H82. NNO. H O NNO NNH NNH 803 O O 8033882 NN NNN NNH ON 059a O O H6098“? hero . O O ON NNH 53 H8368? OH NNN.N NNN. ON ON ON 808 850 ON NNH ON NNN N NNN.N OHN ONN gag ONuNNNH A+H0.0NO 8N O O Nmmefl -H .OH AOHIHO.NO AN-HN.NO AN.N-OO 083 F». «OH—NH 5.802 H2 HHmOm whoa, 09.88 869m immune 86 and . .HNIONNH 92 8an3 .mNHN EOE mm .858 @605 um ggfigggmofififigmwmflg genus mm.m a 171 TABLE 5.36 PATTERNS OF DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL VALUE INCOME AMONG SAMPLE FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLDS IN SURVEY VILLAGES: SHARES OF ORDINAL GROUPS, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Households 1965-66 1970-71 Top 5 percent 49.6 49.0 Top 10 percent 64.8 67.1 TOp 20 percent 78.5 79.7 Second 20 percent 10.7 10.5 Third 20 percent 6.4 5.5 Fourth 20 percent 3.5 3.1 Bottom 20 percent 0.9 1.2 Gini ratio 0.732 Q3742 was associated with the changes in paddy production, the total effect of the increased paddy production would appear to have had almost no effect on the distribution of income among farm operators. Although the distribution of income from paddy produc— tion was about the same in both years, two factors were critical in determining the distribution of income from paddy production in addition to area operated, namely, the level of production and the level of prices received for paddy. As was seen earlier, the smaller farm Operators had a lower level of paddy production in both periods which was probably due to lower levels of purchased inputs, particularly for fertilizer. Secondly, the largest farmers had a much higher level of prices received for paddy in the second period. The role these two factors played in determining the distribution of income will be discussed in detail in Chapter VII. frort acre mar} L .he inc ”3. 172 Total Cash Income As indicated earlier, cash income is important not only from the standpoint of a form of income which can be used more readily to purchase other goods and services in the market, it is also an indication of the cash resources which may be available to farm operators for purchased inputs in paddy production. The total cash income from all sources increased 47 percent at current prices or 13 percent in real value terms40 (see Table 5.37). Other agricultural cash income increased V the most with a 142 percent increase, but the 48 percent \ increase in cash income from paddy production contributed over 70 percent of the total increase in cash income. Not all groups of farm Operators had the same degree of total cash income nor the same relative change in cash income. By tenure groups, the average owner-Operator had a 50 percent increase in cash income while the average tenants increased his cash income by 34 percent and owner-tenants had only a 10 percent increase on the average as shown in Table 5.38. The absolute level of cash income for the average owner- operators was 7 and 13 times more than owner-tenants and tenants, respectively, in 1965-66, increasing to 10-14 times higher than these other groups of farm Operators in 1970-71. 0In both years cash income amounted to 74 percent of total value income. The difference between cash income and value income represents consumption, kind wage payments, gifts, and kind payments for other goods and services. l73 .N.H “ovum“ may Na OmumHNoom N NH + fillralnllllll. NNOO.NNN NNN.NHN meooaH ONMO Hum» Hmuos m.mw H onooa oam.awv o.ooa mwm.mam mEoocN Sumo Hmuos N.Hva+ N.HH mno.mm N.NH www.mm maoocfi amusuHOONummcoz w n mam.vm w.v mmv.vH mEoocN . Hmunuasoflumm uosuo N.Nm + .n.o mom.m n.o who.m Momma HOHOHHDUNHmm N.HH + H.N NNN.HN O.NH NNN.NN mmouo umsuo O NO + O.OO NNN.NNN N.OO NON.ONN coHuoONoum NNNNN Tlllll mm mm IIIMMMMNMIIII. Hmuoa mo wsam> Nance mo wsam> unwouom ucmonwm unwouwm thcnma ownmmma mousom OEOOOH .Nmosqu> Nm>mom hm . m magma .HNIOONH oz¢ NNiNNNH .momoom mzoozH Om zH mmoammmmo Exam NHNENN um om>HmomN mzoozH NNNO qNumaou OOOOHUON mwusmah U a .mmlmwma Sou moms u wco Ousaounm muwowpsw ummmcucmumm cw wmuamwmm NOON +O NNN ANNHuO HHN . 11. ¢m+ Hmc ANOH+O «mm 0 O Awom+v ”Mmsw OEOOGH SQMO “OZ AOHHO HNO ANNO NNN ANNNNO NNN.N xmu msoocH HuuauHsoNuNN AOH-O OHH AHHO NO AONN O NNN «sooaH sumo Hayes ANOO NNH ANHO NNH ANNN O NNN meaocH HNNOOHOOHuNacoz AhHO on Am O «a Am O «H OEOOGH HMHOUHSUNHOO Hwfiuo ANHO NO AN O NO ANN O NHN noan HNMOuHOuHNNN A3O NN ANNO NHN ANNNHO NNN.N N can umsuo m cowuoscoum mmmmm HNIONNH Nmm mow va.v OEOOGN ammo #02 o 0 ma KOO uEOOcN Hausuasowumc NNN NON NNN.O «soocH ammo Houoa mma mm com OEOOGN HOHOOHDONHOOOOZ and mma mm OEOOON Housuaauwumm Monuo Hm Ha Ha wanna Hausuasowum4 ON oq mam mmouo umsuo mm mmm mmm.m cowuoscoum hmmmm wwumoma IlnnlllllulluulnnllIIIIIImoomqmuuuun nnnnn nun: aaaaa Inuit: panama ucmcmuluoczo HOOMHOOOIuoczo condom OeoocH .HNIONNH oz< NNaNNNH .mmozma mm .momoom QZOUZH Mm .mmwdflAH> Mm>mam 2H aflomwmoom moedmwmo Eddm Hamidm “mm NZOUZH mwdv mm.m mqmdfi 175 In real income terms, the owner-tenants as a group actually incurred a 16 percent reduction in real cash income. During the same time, the owner-operators group gained 16 percent in real cash income, and tenants had a minor 3 percent increase. While most of the cash income in the survey villages was from paddy production, it was not as important as a source for cash income for some farm operators. About 75 percent of cash income was from paddy production for the average owner-operator and over 60 percent for owner-tenants, but only 15 percent of the cash income for tenants as a group was from paddy production in 1970-71 which was up from only 7 percent in the earlier period. Thus, the other income sources were much more important for tenants for cash resources to invest in paddy production. The importance of paddy production as a source of cash income also varied considerably by farm size as shown in Table 5.39. The very small farm operators received only 12 percent of their cash income from paddy production with the small group of farm Operators getting 42 percent while the largest group of farm Operators received about 80 percent of their cash income from paddy production. The large group of farmers had an even higher prOportion with 96 and 87 percent, respectively, for 1965-66 and 1970-71. The fact that the smaller farmers get less of their cash income from paddy production reflects both a lower prOportion 0f value income from paddy production as shown earlier in 176 TABLES.39 , BYDCO’EESOUKE, CASiDCCMEPERSAMPIEFAMGERMORHGJSEHOIDDISURVEY BY FAIM SIZE, 1965-66 AN) 1970-71 Inccme Source I Farm Size (Acres) J Very Small Small I 11111 I Large I Very large (0-2.5) (2.51—5) (5.01-10) (10.01-20) (20.01+) ' ; 1965—66 ‘ :3 Padd—y production 35 1,920 3,881 17,684 'r‘ . other crops 20 281 119 3,165 ' Agricultural labor 21 0 0 0 other agricultural income 69 235 55 o Nonagricultural inocme 149 489 0 1,498 Total cash incane 294 2,925 4,055 22,347 Agricultural income 0 0 6 146 Net c331 inccne 294 2,925 4,049 22,201 1970-71 Pafiy production 55 ( 20)a 2,621 ( 701) 4,972 (1091) 27,273 (9589) other crops 1 (- 1) 110 145 (-l36) 314 ( 195) 3,529 ( 364) Agricultural labor 31 ( 10) 23 0) 0 ( O) 0 ( other agricultural cme 75 ( 6) 184 319 (84) 105 ( 50) 1,810 (1810) Nonagricultural 264 (115) 192 ( 0) 1,061 ( 572) 310 (310) , Total cash inoune 444 (150) 883 (161) 4,146 (1221) 5,701 (1646) 34,125 (11778) Agricultural income tax 0 b 0 b 0 37 b 321 Net cash innate 444 (+51%) 883 (+22%) 4,146 (+42%)b 5,664 (+40%) 33,804 (+52%)b Net real cash b b came 342 (+16%)b 679 (-6%) 3,139 (+93) 4,357 (+13%)b 26,003 (+171)b a‘Figures in parentheses indicate absolute changes iron 1965-66. bFigxxes indicate relative changes from 1965-66. CDeflated by the factor 1.3. 177 this section and a lower proportion of their retained paddy production being sold. As indicated earlier, the very small farm Operators sold only about 40 percent of their net retained paddy compared to over 85 percent for the largest group of farmers. While all farm size groups had an increase in total cash income at current prices, when the cash income in the second period is deflated to reflect increases in general price levels, the small size group of farmers had a 6 percent decrease in real cash income. The very small size group of farm operators had a 16 percent increase in real cash income which was just below the 17 percent increase for the largest farmers. Thus, the very small and very large farmers had about the same relative increase in cash income. In absolute terms, however, the differences are extra- ordinary. In both years the very large farm operator group received 76 times more cash income thanthe very small farm- Operator group. And while the average very small farm-operator had a 150 rupee increase in cash income, the average very large farm operator had an 11,603 rupee increase in net cash income. Again, the agricultural income tax paid by individuals with holdings in excess of 7.5 acres had a negligible effect on the distribution of income. The very large farmers paid less than one percent of their total cash income towards this tax in each year. The distribution of total cash income was only slightly more skewed than the distribution of value income as shown in 178 Table 5.40. Whereas the Gini ratio for distribution of value income was 0.732 and 0.742 for 1965—66 and 1970-71, respectively, the Gini ratio for distribution of total cash income was 0.841 in 1965-66 and increased to 0.849 in 1970-71. In each year the top 5 percent of the farm operator households received about 60 percent of the total cash income. And the top 20 percent received over 88 percent of total cash income for each year. At the other extreme the bottom 20 percent of the farm operators as a group showed a negative cash income. In 1970-71, 22 farm operators had a negative cash income compared to 19 in 1965-66. While it is conceivable for a farm operator to have a deficit in particular years for one reason or another, it cannot be considered a permanent position to have a negative cash income over a very long period of time. Since this study measures only two points in time, it is not known whether this occurs on a continual basis or just in these two years. In addition to errors in measurement, a possible explan- ation of this phenomenon is the existence of other loans in addition to production loans received by these farm operators. In every case, these farm Operators received loans classified as consumption loans which were in excess of the negative cash income. While many of these loans were from money lenders or pawn shops, some were from other farm Operators in the village. In this way, the borrower builds up a dependence upon the lender which the lender can use as a . 7 179 TABLE 5.40 PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL CASH INCOME AMONG SAMPLE FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLDS IN SURVEY VILLAGES: SHARES OF ORDINAL GROUPS, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Households 1965—66 1970-71 Top 5 percent 59.4 60.5 Top 10 percent 75.0 77.1 Top 20 percent 88.1 88.9 Second 20 percent 8.3 7.9 Third 20 percent 3.4 3.0 Fourth 20 percent 1.1 1.0 Bottom 20 percent —0.9 —0.8 Gini ratio 0.841 0.849 source of socio-political power within the Village.41 In addition, Epstein [1962] found that debt relationships are often hereditary and the principal debt is never repaid in many cases. Thus, these loans can be considered a form of income transfer to the borrower. As was indicated at the outset of this discussion of cash income, the main purpose was to determine the ability of farm operators to invest in cash inputs from their cash income from all sources. One indication of this ability is the proportion of cash expenses in paddy production to total cash income. If the amount of production credit is subtracted from the total cash expenses in paddy production, the pro— portion of net cash expenses financed by household cash income 41 . . See Epstein [1962] for a dlSCuSSlon of the structure and interrelationships created by lending. WE 180 was 29 percent in 1965—66 and 30 percent in 1970-71 as shown in Table 5.41.42 Although the relative prOportion of paddy cash expenses financed by cash income increased slightly for the two villages as a whole, some groups of farmers had a decrease in their paddy cash expenses financed with cash income in both absolute and relative terms. Both the very small and small farm Operators had a lower proportion of their paddy cash expenses financed by cash income, and of this same group, only the very small owner-operators ahd an increase in the absolute amount of paddy cash expenses financed by cash income. By tenure, both the owner-tenant and tenant groups had a decrease in the absolute amount and relative proportion of paddy cash expenses financed by cash income. As was seen earlier (see Tables 5.11 and 5.12) most farm Operators about doubled the amount of cash expenses in paddy production in the second period. Thus, a much higher propor- tion of paddy cash expenses was financed with production loans in the second period as is seen in Table 5.42 which indicates 44 percent of all paddy cash expenses were financed by pro- duction loans in 1970-71 compared to 23 percent in 1965-66. While all groups of farm Operators increased the proportion of paddy cash expenses financed by production loans, the very small and small farm operators as well as the owner-tenant and tenant groups moved to very high levels of financing paddy 421n the village study in Mysore State by Epstein [1962] an average of 35 percent of the cash income was used to invest in crop production. 181 .983 coflosuoum human we 03E 01.3 mum.“ mung sumo H33 ma mg >33 ammo you 0.8% Borough pom 9505 5mg H33. .46 saga m mm momcmnwfl hound ammo um: 38% 3.9me omflcdoumm 9PM ON NNN ON NON.NH 3. NNNN ON 088% mm m3” .3 unmade Hm OHN mm uglnmfiso om «ward mN womrm‘n 3‘ Sim mm Houmnmmolnmg ONIONS” mm Nmm mm 3&6 NM «9.4 mm wmmHde mm 02.. mm page mm NON NN NEE—mung mm NNN; NN vmwé Nm eva «N “3&9395 mmlmwma rill.) ll]! muswUHONH ”EN—05H mufiuumm assess musmpnom £595 mugoumm £595 “tn .omO SNAHOOHO SHESNO OONWZN 0W3 30> 09.3 5.602 308$ ONE 5mm 8389 1242.3“ 02¢ wwlmwmfi lg DZQ MNHw Eh rm .3 EB ZH gag ggémagamgggwmgmgggwgmagg .36 SE 182 mmim Nm hww.N am mmn mm man we v3” wwmumam Na. omn Nw mmw~ Nb mmH #5309 2 ~84 mp mmm mm Sm 0.5.9.; m3. ~m mm Sm . N mm gm vm mww mm 3H HoumumeIHQS‘O #:0an mmo 3» meJ N.N EN hm ANA 3 an $.94me ov oov Nv moa vv ow yam—EH. mm mum mv SH mv a: pram—“flung mmw ww mmmtfi . an :N .3. mm mv mm HoumumanIHm—g 8133 mm mm mm mm mm £505 , ucwoumm £595 ucwuumm pg ufiouwm ufig £30me £595 .08 Sméoéd 8.38.3 Amudw.8 3 ~ro was 30> was as." Ham 32m Waxy A85 3am Eumm mg A733 ozm 8:33 £375. 92 £3 EE 3 .5 E E Bofimaom ”HEB Em 55m mum Eammu wm 82¢sz mafia mmcu 39E .285 .6 BEBE,” azm 386 onoBBm gm .6 .9592 Nair, EB ape] cas} a h ope sma hig in: pa: fa: se di in 183 cash expenses through production loans. These groups of farm operators financed about 70 percent or more of their paddy cash expenses with loans. While the smaller farm operators and tenant groups were apparently able to get a high proportion of their paddy cash expenses financed through loans, they generally had to pay a higher price in the form of interest than other farm operators as shown in Table 5.43. For instance, the very small farm operators paid interest rates nearly 50 percent higher than the largest farmers in 1970-71 which was an improvement from 1965—66 when the very small farm operators paid interest rates over twice as high as the very large farm operators. The reason for the variation in interest rates can be seen by looking at the proportion of production loans from different sources for the groups of farm operators as shown in Table 5.44. While the very large farmers received all Of their loans from preferred sources from the standpoint 0f the rate of interest paid, the smaller farmers and tenant groups received some of their loans from sources which had very high rates of interest. In summary, all farm operator groups had an increase in cash income from all sources. But the proportion of and absolute amount of paddy cash expenses financed by cash income decreased between the two periods for the very small, small and tenant groups as a whole. This is due in part to a decrease in real cash income to owner-tenants and small 184 mdwm blbl bhbl HMhl MhHH bhhH ummuo>¢ b.HH o.oa m.ma m.ma ucmcma v.m . . o m m.HH m.MH ucmcmulumc3o o m m m m.m o.m N.NH uoumuwQOIummBD Hutchmd imam“ PP E HP E. E $334 h.mw o.ca ~.m m.ma panama m.m . m.m o.mH o.ma ucmcmuuumczo m w N.HH m.m m.c o.¢d Houmummonuocso IIIIIIII wmlmomd IIIIII unsunlunnuununuauucmoummulnnlununnuIlnlunuuluunnnlnnnluu ll mmmum>¢ A+Ho.o~. Romuao.oav Aoanao.mv .m:am.- Am.~:ov omumq manna asaomz Hausa Hausa hHflu/ NH0> “moundv wnam Emma muaams 'll .Hsnonmfl 92¢ ooumoma .mmozme azm muHm zmem em .mmuaqu> am>mam zH mmoaammmo swam mqmzam um mzaoq onsuaoomm semen mom aaam ammmmszH no mean mwamm>< mv.m mflmda ins-hilt” 185 MB 5.44 PKPORHWCFPAWYPWIWIQDNSFKMDWWFOR SMPIEWCPERMORSNSIJRVEYVIIIPGES, BYFAMSIZEAND'I'ENJRE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 . Pam mentor 1965-66 1970—71 Classification Credit Somrcea Credit Sourcea XIBIT‘iL I'L‘B‘LCID A Peroafi: We Omerhoperator 80 19 2 1 98 1 l Owner-taunt 52 19 29 75 17 4 4 Tenant 66 28 2 4 71 19 9 1 Farm Size Very mall (0-2.5) 42 27 30 1 70 19 6 5 Snell (2.51-5) 67 22 8 3 76 16 7 1 Medium (5.01-10) 67 33 94 6 13198 (10.01-20) 74 26 100 Very large (20.01+) 100 100 A11 fam 72 20 7 1 91 6 2 1 Average rate of interest per M 6.8 18.2 24.9 36.7 9.1 18.0 22.4 32.1 a'Iheemnrcesindicateflbytl'nelettersA-DincludethnefollonnnLng sources: A - Cooperative societies, barks and intensive mmmring schane (a special loan ttmgh the agriculture department to email-age use of clunica1 fertilizer) B - Other farm Operators C 8 Pm broker D - Paddy traders, provision stops. fa ri pr ir lr'U‘l 186 farm operators. In addition, the standard of living may have risen to cause this group of farm operators to spend a higher proportion of cash income for consumption than investments in production inputs. with paddy cash expenses about doubling between the two periods a much greater share of paddy cash expenses had to be financed through loans which were at a higher cost on the average for this group of farmers. The implication is that the financial resources avail— able to the smaller omuuwoperators and tenant groups served as a constraint to investment in paddy production. The effect this had on production and income will be investigated more thoroughly in Chapter VII. Effect of Caste on Household Income As was pointed out in Chapter IV, the average Brahmin operated nearly 10 times as much gross paddy area as either non-Brahmins or Harijans. In addition, all but one Brahmin owned all of the land he operated compared to 40 percent of the non—Brahmins and only 24 percent of the Harijans. Thus, it is not surprising that the Brahmins had much higher incomes than the other caste groups in both years as shown in Table 5.45. The average non—Brahmin had only 8 percent as much as the average Brahmin in 1970—71 compared to 9 percent in the earlier period. And the average Harijan farm operator house— hold, with the least income of the three caste groups, had only 6 percent as much income in 1970-71 as the average Brahmin, a reduction from 7 percent in 1965—66. Ye 187 W 5.45 REAL VALUE INCDVIE PER SAMPIE FAIM OPERATOR HOUSEHOID IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY IMIZME SOURCE, BY CASTE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Year and Insane Braimin Non—Brahmin Harijan Source J ‘ Ripees 1965—66 Paay production 11,683 789 607 Other crops 1,961 106 18 Agricultural labor 0 73 192 Other agricultural income 341 ‘ 131 64 Nonagricultural insane 880 219 97 Total value insane 14,865 1,318 978 Agricultural insane tax 74 0 0 Net value insane 14,791 1,318 978 1970-71a Paddy production 13,731 (2048)b 809 (20) 672 (65) Other crops 1,670 (~29l) 95 (-11) 12 (-6) Agricultural labor 0 (0) 90 (17) 173 (—l9) other agricultural insane 998 (657) 130 (—1) 62 (-2) Nonagricultural income 1,032 (152) 221 (2) 115 (18) ‘Ibtal value insane 17,431 (2566) 1,345 (27) 1,034 (56) Agricultural insane tax 128 l 0 Net value income 17,303 (+17%)c 1,344 (+2%)C 1,034 (+6%) aDeflated by the factor 1.3. 1) Figures in paretheses indicate absolute changes from 1965—66. cIndicates relative change from 1965-66. inco: a 17 perc gain ncn pro the in le‘ Br he CE 188 Although all three caste groups had a gain in real income between the two periods, Brahmins gained the most with a 17 percent increase in real income compared to only a 2 percent increase for non-Brahmins as a group and a 6 percent gain by Harijans. If the gains and losses from other sources of income are balanced out, most of the increases in income for all caste groups came from paddy production. But Brahmins had the most increase in income from paddy production with an 18 percent increase compared to a 3 percent increase for non-Brahmins and an 11 percent increase in income from paddy production for Harijans. This was caused mostly by the fact that the very large farm operators who had the highest increase in income from paddy production, were all Brahmins. The fact that Brahmin farm Operators had much higher levels of income and the most increase in income has some strong socio-political implications. Other caste groups in the area have always been in an inferior position relative to Brahmins. Over the past few years the other caste groups have generally become more politicized. Evidence of this can be seen by the takeover of the State government by the DMK partwahich was originally an anti-Brahmin organization. With the greater participation in the political process, the other caste groups have looked for greater economic rewards for their efforts. The results of this study would indicate these efforts were somewhat exasperated by the distribution of increased income from paddy production. Po? the ova toq 8V i1 ——i————_— 189 Changes in Income of Landless Laborer Households Landless laborers comprise an important segment of the population in the survey villages. In total, 61 percent of the agricultural households were landless laborers or slightly over 50 percent of all households. Thus, the changes which took place within this group were critical in the total evaluation of the effects of changes in paddy production. Classification of Landless Laborer Households The 67 landless laborer households randomly selected from the 247 total landless laborer households in the two 1 villages were classified by laborer type and caste as shown i in Table 5.46. TABLE 5.46 CLASSIFICATION OF SAMPLE OF LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLDS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY LABORER TYPE AND CASTE, 1971. Laborer Type Caste Casual Casual and Permanent Total Permanent Non—Brahmin 21 l 0 22 Harijan 37 3 5 45 Total 58 4 5 67 \ Since the question was not asked on the village census 1 with respect to what type of labor the laborer households were employed, it is not known how representative this sample is in this regard. However, the division by labor type roughly approximatesthe proportions of casual and permanent 190 hired labor on the farms in the two villages. If the laborer households with both casual labor and permanent labor employ- ment are divided evenly, 60 out of the 67 households in the sample could be considered casual laborers for about 90 per— cent of all households. This compares with about 93 percent of the labor days on village farms being performed by casual labor. By caste, 67 percent of the landless laborer households were Harijans with the remainder being non—Brahmin. As indicated in Chapter III, there were no Brahmin landless laborers. The Village census indicated 61 percent of the landless labor households were Harijan. Thus the sample was somewhat biased towards Harijans. Changes in Total Household Income The landless laborers had four general sources of income including paddy labor, other crop labor, other agricultural income, and nonagricultural income. The total value income from these sources for the landless laborer households included in the survey increased 47 percent at current prices or an increase of 13 percent in real value income between the two periods as shown in Table 5.47. with over 77 percent of total value income coming from Paddy labor wages in 1970—71 and 76 percent in 1965—66, it was, by far, the most important source of income for landless laborers. Combined with other crop labor wages, 88 percent of total value income was from agricultural labor wages in 1970-71, up slightly from 87 percent in 1965—66. 191 TABLE 5.47 'IUl‘ALVAIIJE moon-3 FOR SPMPLECF LANDLESS LABORERHCIJSEHOIDS IN SJRVEY vms, BY m 5m, 1965-66 ADD 1970-71. Source 1965-66 1970—71 1970--71<‘=l «unmemtprkxs) Gnalehrn paddy labor 22,646 33,720 (+49%)b 25,939 (+14%) Other crap labor 3,176 4,758 (+50%) 3,660 (+15%) Odun'apfismIUHal insane 2,917 3,293 (+13%) 2,533 (~13%) Nmugrhmflxnral insane 1,002 2,006 (+106%) 1,589 (+59%) Total value insane 29,741 43,837 (+47%) 33,721 (+13%) aDeflated by the factor 1.3. b Figures in parentheses indicate relative changes from 1965—66. Paddy labor wages also provided 83 percent of the increase in total real value income with the 14 percent increase in income from paddy labor wages. Together with the 15 percent increase in other crop labor wages, total increases in real income from agricultural labor accounted for 95 percent of the increase in real value income. The sources for the increase in income for agricultural labor can be divided between changes in labor days and changes in wage rates as shown in Table 5.48. As will be discussed in detail in Chapter VI, the number of paddy labor days of employment for the landless laborers in the survey increased 7.6 percent between the two periods. Sub- tracting this from the total increase in income from paddy labor indicates increases in paddy labor wage rates increased income from paddy labor by 41 percent at current prices or by 7 percent in real income. in) in te 0t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII:_______________________________________________——_——_———v777 192 TABLE 5.48 SOURCE OF CHANGE BETWEEN 1965-66 AND 1970—71 IN CURRENT AND REAL AGRICULTURAL LABOR INCOME FOR SAMPLE OF LANDLESS LABORERS IN SURVEY VILLAGES. Source of Change Current Income l Real Income Paddy I Other Crops j Paddy j Other Crops Percent Days of labor 7.6 14.8 7.6 14.8 Wages 41.3 35.0 6.9 0.43 Total Change 48.9 49.8 14.5 15.2 aThis minor change in real income due to changes in wages for other crops appears because of rounding even though there was no indicated change in real wages for other crops. With labor days on other crops increasing by 14.8 percent, increases in daily wage rates for other crops increased current income from labor on other crops by 35 percent. But in real terms virtually all of the increase in income from labor on other crops was due to increases in labor days. While the average daily wage for labor on other crops remained at 1.75 rupees per day in real wage rate, there were changes in real wage rates for paddy labor which increased the real income from paddy labor nearly as much as the effect of increased labor days. The real wage rate for paddy labor increased 11 percent for male casual labor and 3 percent for male permanent labor as shown in Table 5.49. The basic reason for the increase of permanent male laborers being less than the increase for casual labor is that a sizeable proportion of the total wage is paid in kind at the end of the season. The amount of this payment did not change between the two periods. 193 TABU35.49 DKHX'WMEIRNEB RXIPNMN'LNKXRREKETEDBYSflWPUEOFIANXESS IABORERS IN SURVEY VTIIAGES, BY LABORER TYPE AND SEX, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. YEar Casrfl.Labor 4] Penmnentiuflxx Male I Esmale ] Male 1 Remus Rupees Per Day 1965-66 2.48 1.07 2.84 1.18 1970—71 b Current prices 3.59 (+45%) 1.32 (+23%) 3.80 (+34%) 1.37 (+16%) Real wagea 2.76 (+11%) 1.02 (— 5%) 2.92 (+ 3%) 1.05 (—11%) aDeflated by the factor 1.3. bFigures in parentheses indicate relative changes fran 1965—66. The real wage rate per day for female labor actually declined between 1965—66 and 1970-71. The real casual female labor wage rate decreased 5 percent, and the real permanent female labor wage rate decreased 11 percent. The reason for the greater decrease in real wages for permanent female labor is the same given above for increases in wage rates for male permanent labor being less than increases for male casual labor wage rates. It is not known how important the demand and supply relationships for labor are in determining agricultural labor wage rates in this area. Certainly, the quantity of labor demanded for paddy production did increase between the two periods, but the population of laborers, undoubtedly, also increased with the result being that the two effects may have cancelled each other. The most common reason given by both farm operators and laborers for the increase in agricultural labor wage rates was becat line farm per Dist of t wage belj the (on in: in: on of Ca 194 because the cost of living had gone up. This reasoning is in line with the more traditional master-servant relationship between farm Operators and laborers. There had also been considerable tensions between farm operators and laborers over wage rates in some areas of the District. The Communist party has been very active in some parts of the District in organizing laborers to strike for higher wages. In this regard, many laborers in the survey villages believed labor wage rates had increased as a direct result of the activities of the Communist party. Even though the Communist party was not very active in these two villages, the wages paid to laborers tend to be nearly the same as in nearby villages. In this way, an increase in wages in one area may, in fact, have an effect on wages in a much larger area. In addition to the changes in income from agricultural labor, changes in income from other agricultural sources as well as nonagricultural income had an effect on total income to landless laborers, though in a more minor amount. While increasing by 13 percent at current prices, other agricultural income43 decreased by 13 percent in real terms and contributed only 7 percent of total income in 1970-71, down from 10 percent Of total income in 1965-66. With only 12 laborer households 43Other agricultural income is a composite of goat sales, cattle herding: milk sales, egg sales and cart hire. 195 having income from other agricultural sources, this was not a very important change. Nonagricultural income,44 though even more minor than other agricultural income in terms of total income, increased from 3 percent of total income to 5 percent with a 59 percent increase in income from this source. Most of this increase was from additional nonagricultural labor which was not present in the earlier period. As was the case for other agricultural income, nonagricul- tural income was not an income source for most laborer house- holds. In 1970-71, there were 10 households in the survey with nonagricultural income compared to only 7 in 1965-66. Thus, agricultural labor income was the sole source of income for most laborer households with paddy labor being the most important source. Effect of Labor Type on Laborer Income Because of variations between types of labor in the number of labor days employed and differences in wage rates between casual and permanent labor, there were differences between the total incomes per household of the three categories of laborers as shown in Table 5.50. The differences in total income among all landless labor households were not great, 44Nonagricultural income is composed of nonagricultural labor and business. There were three households who indicated they had some form of business which included a minor trade in paddy, a provision shop, and making coconut leaf fans for housing. EALVAHJE MPER SAMPLEIANDIESS I.AmRERHGJSEHOID 1N SURVEY VIIIPGES, BY mm TYPE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. 196 m 5.50 Imam Source laborer Type Casual and Casual Pennamnt Permanent Average (58) (4)4 (5) (67) Rupees 1965-66 pm; labor 318 629 369 338 Other crops labor 39 112 115 47 Other agricultural imam 50 0 0 44 Nonagricultural insane 15 33 0 15 Total value imam 422 774 484 444 G = 0.271° l970-7la ‘iim'yhbor 361 (43)b 783 (154) 378 (9) 387 (49) Other crOps labor 43 ( 4) 107 (— S) 133 (18) 55 ( 8) Other agricultural imam 44 (~6) 0 ( 0) 0 (0) 38 (-6) Nomgricultural imam 25 (10) 25 {-8) O (O) 23 (8) Total value imam 473 (51) 915 (141) 511 (27) 503 (59) Percent mange +12% +18% +6% +13% G=mn$ aDeflated by the factor 1.3. bFigures in parentheses indicate absolute changes fran 1965-66. c:Ixxlicates Gini ratio of imam distribution anong sample landless laborers. h. 197 however, as indicated by the very low Gini ratios in each period. The average casual laborer households had an increase in total value income of 12 percent between the two periods. Most of this increase was from increases in income from paddy labor. Of the 51 rupee increase in total real income per household 43 rupees of this amount was contributed by increases in real income from paddy labor. The combination of a 6 percent increase in paddy labor days along with a 7 percent increase in average real wage rates (male and female combined) produced a 14 percent increase in real income from paddy labor for casual labor households. The households with both casual and permanent laborers had much higher incomes than either the casual labor households or permanent labor households. But because there were only four households in this group, it cannot be considered very representative.45 Households with only permanent laborers, though only five in total, had average incomes which were more in line with the casual laborer households. Their only source of income was from agricultural labor. As was seen earlier, real paddy wage rates for permanent laborers increased only 3 percent for males and decreased 11 percent for females. The result was that income from paddy labor increased only 2 percent while income from other crop labor increased 16 percent as a result of a larger relative increase in labor days on other crops than paddy labor. 45One household in this group, in particular, had about three times as many labor days as the average for the rest of the group. 198 Since about 80 percent of wages received for paddy labor and 34 percent of wages for other crOps were paid in kind (paddy), the cash income for landless laborers was considerably less than value income. With the additional cash income from paddy sales of about 15 percent of total kind payments received, the average landless laborer household had 274 rupees cash income in 1970-71 at current prices or 211 rupees in real cash income compared to 192 rupees in 1965-66 for a 10 percent increase. This represented 42 percent of total value income in 1970-71 compared to 43 percent in 1965-66. Effect of Caste on Household Income There were no major differences in income received between non-Brahmin and Harijan labor households. Non-Brahmin labor households had about 15 percent more income on the average as shown in Table 5.51. While Harijan households had more income from agricultural labor due to a greater number of days of employment, non-Brahmin households had more income from other sources. In the case of other agricultural income, non-Brahmins owned more livestock which allowed them to gain more income from this source. And while relatively minor in proportion to total income, non-Brahmins had more income from non-agricultural sources than Harijans. This was due mostly to two minor businesses being operated by non-Brahmins. But if the nonagricultural income is not included, there was virtually no difference between the two general caste categories in total real value income. I... Ir l.--‘ 199 TABLE 5.51 REAL VALUE INCOME PER SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY CASTE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. A— Income Source Non-Brahmin Harijan . . 7 . 1(22) ((45) --------- Rupees----------- 1965-66 ‘ Paddy labor 305 354 Other crops labor 43 49 Other agricultural income 98 17 Nonagricultural income 43 1 Total value income 489 421 1970-71a b Paddy labor 364 (59) 398 (44) Other crOps labor 55 (12) 55 ( 6) Other agricultural income 68 (—30) 23 ( 6) Nonagricultural income 65 (22) 4 ( 3) Total value income 552 (63) 480 (59) Percent chang§_ +13% +14% aDeflated by the factor 1.3. bFigures in parentheses indicate absolute changes from 1965-66. In summary, the landless laborers received an average 13 percent increase in real income between 1965-66 and 1970-71. Most of the increased income came from paddy labor. Increased real wage rates and labor days employed in paddy labor per household had about an equal positive effect on income from paddy labor. This result is somewhat contrary to pOpular literature on the effects of the increased production from high yielding varieties on incomes to laborers which suggests that laborers were left behind in the distributive effects because of possibly less employment and increases in the cost of living. This study indicates that the landless laborers whc im int th th 200 who were a majority of the rural households had relative increases in income which were greater than the relative increases in income for most farm Operators. However, when asked if their incomes had changed between the two periods, most Of the landless laborers interviewed said their incomes had remained the same. Of those remaining, as many said their incomes had decreased as those who indicated an increase in total income. Though as a group, the landless laborers received relatively higher increases in total income than most farm Operators; they generally did not perceive any change. Since the landless laborers received less income in absolute terms than farm Operators in both periods, their socio—economic position did not change which probably accounts for their belief that their incomes had not changed either. Changes in Income Distribution Among All Agricultural Households Having discussed the changes in income from paddy and other income sources for farm Operators and landless laborers separately, the effect of changes in income for all agricultural households may now be viewed in the aggregate. Changes in the distribution of income from paddy production will first be considered followed by measures of change in the distribution Of total income among all agricultural households. With the changes in income from paddy production came changes in the flows Of land, labor and income between economic groups as shown in Figure 5.1. There was a 3 percent decrease 201 Figure 5.l.-Relative changes between 1965-66 and 1970-71 in the flows Of land, labor, andreal imamfranpaddyprodmtim between ecaunic classes in survey villages. marsof landlords banged Land .4 +1% imam -11% value of rental aFiguresin flesesizfiicaterelativectnmesinrealixmm permiselnldwithinemhecannicclass. 13 Kim wages (paddy) are valued at Opportunity cost for fann Operators. 202 in the area of land rented frOm landlords by owner—tenants with no change in the area of land rented by tenants. While the quantity of paddy per acre paid for the use of land remained constant between the two periods, the real value of that payment as an Opportunity cost for owner—tenants and tenants decreased by 17 percent for owner-tenants and 11 percent for tenants. This reduction was due in part to the decrease in area rented by owner-tenants. But most of the decrease in real value Of rental payments for owner~tenants and all of the decrease in rental payment for tenants was due to a higher increase in the general price level than the increase in price they received for their paddy. While the general price level increased by 30 percent, the average price of paddy increased by 14 and 18 percent, respectively, for owner-tenants and tenants. The opposite resulted with the flows of land and income between the largest owner—Operators and owners of managed land. In spite of a 12 percent decrease in the area of managed land operated by the largest owner—operator, the opportunity cost of the paddy payment given to the owners of managed land increased 1 percent. This was due to the 38 percent increase in price of paddy received by the largest farm operators who had managed land. The changes in flows of labor to farm Operators from the landless laborer group and income in the form of wages from farm Operators to landless laborers shows some variations 203 between the different types of farm Operators. Both owner- tenants and tenants had a 3 percent increase in the number of landless labor days employed in their paddy production with a 13 and 14 percent increase, respectively, for owner-tenants and tenants in the real value of wages paid to landless laborers. At the same time, owner-Operators as a group had a 9 percent increase in the number of landless labor days they employed with a 36 percent increase in the value of the wages paid to landless laborers. The increase in the real value wages paid by owner-operators to landless laborers was higher than for owner-tenants and tenants because of the much higher increase in Opportunity cost of the kind (paddy) payment for the largest owner-Operators who provided the largest proportion of landless labor employment within this group. Thus, the wages paid by the farm Operators to the landless laborers represents an Opportunity cost to the farm Operators which in the case of the largest owner-Operators was higher than the value Of the wages as income to the landless laborers. As just discussed, the changes in flows Of resources between economic groups were not extreme. But the ultimate effect on the incomes per household within each economic group from changes in paddy production indicates variation in the extent to which each group gained or lost income from changes in paddy production. In a relative sense all economic groups gained except the owner-tenants who had a 3 percent average decrease in real income from paddy production. Tenants of?“ ._ .m:n~i‘s i I 204 had the largest relative increase with a 17 percent increase in real income followed by owner—operators with a 15 percent increase and landless laborers with a 14 percent increase in real income from paddy. Within each economic group, however, there was consid— erable variation in the relative changes in real income from paddy as shown in Table 5.52. And there are striking differences in the absolute changes in real income from paddy. The range is an average loss in real income of 814 rupees per household for the medium sized owner-tenants to an average gain of 4,068 rupees per household for the very large owner—operators. The rather large loss by the medium sized owner-tenants may be an anomally since only two farmers are represented in this group. But other groups such as the small owner—tenants, the large owner-Operators and to a very minor degree, the very small owner-operators also had a decrease in real income related to paddy. Thus, there were some groups who were absolutely worse off as a result of the changes in paddy production. In relation to farm operators, landless laborers gained slightly more in a relative sense with a 14 percent increase in income from paddy compared to 13 percent for all farm Operators as a group. But in terms of absolute change, the landless laborers gained only about one—sixth as much as the average farm operator Though the landless laborers had a fraction of the income from paddy as the average for all farm operators, the average landless laborer had nearly as much income from paddy 205 TABLE 5.52 AVERAGE RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHANGE BETWEEN 1965-66 AND 1970-71 IN REAL INCOME PER SAMPLE HOUSEHOLD FROM PADDY PRODUCTION FOR LANDLESS LABORERS AND FARM OPERATORS BY FARM SIZE AND TENURE IN SURVEY VILLAGES Relative Change Absolute Change Percent Rupees Farm operators Owner-Operators Very small (35)a o - 2 Small (5) +12 + 232 Medium (7) + 3 + 111 Large (6) - l - 39 Very large (9) +20 +4,068 Average (62) +15 + 622 Owner-tenant Very small (10) +24 + 89 Small (21) - 1 - 10 Medium (2) -25 - 814 Average (33) - 3 - 25 Tenants Very small (25) +13 + 45 Small (23) +13 + 55 Medium (2) +92 +l,23l Average (50) +17 + 73 All farm Operators (145) +13 289 Landless laborers (67)b +14 + 49 aFigures in parentheses indicate number of farm Operators in each group. Represents a 27 percent sample of all landless laborers. as In SIP n1 206 as some groups of farm operators as shown in Table 5.53. In particular, the average income from paddy for the very small owner-Operators and owner-tenants was not very much higher than for landless laborers. And the income from paddy for the landless laborers was about the same as for the average very small tenants. While the average landless laborer had nearly as much or the same income from paddy as some groups Of farm Operators, all Of the landless laborers expressed the desire to have some land. For even though the income from Operating a small area of land may not be much, if any, more than income earned as a landless laborer, the operation Of at least some land would put them in a higher socio-economic position. The importance of paddy in its contribution to total income varied considerably between economic groups in the agricultural population as shown in Table 5.53. On the average about 76 percent of total income was from paddy for both land- less laborers and farm Operators in both periods. Generally, the smaller farm Operators had a lower proportion Of their total income from paddy than larger farmers. And tenants tended to have a lower proportion of income from paddy compared to owner-Operators or owner-tenants. In other words, those groups with a low level Of income from paddy tended to have a higher prOportion of total income from other sources compared to those groups with high average levels Of income from paddy. When the other sources of income are added to income from paddy, the owner-tenants as a group showed a 5 percent 207 Una hppmm .Hoan hpomm EOHM wEoosH cam cofiuosoOHQ howmm Eonm meoocfl mopsHocH mac . n m.H souomm may as vmumammam lllllllll qu mH+ mom mHH awn vvv mos wmm mumuoama mamas NH+ mmm.m amp nnv.m wmw.~ won mmH.m muoumummo sumo Ham m + mm» mam mmv mm» cam «we. mammmmez mm+ mma.~ was mam.m wmv.a mes Hem a mesm m . mmm «mm was boa was was Hamsm aum> HH+ mmm wna bmm Ham sma Nwm mucmgwa m u «no.a «mm «mm mma.a «mm new. mmmuowaoz ma- mm>.m Hem.a vvq.m «mm.v mmv.a mmm m as.c H I mmo.a Hms Ham «so.a mms Ham mesm « + mam «ma sma mam mNN mom Hamsm Hm> mUfi6G0#IHmGBO va+ mom.o mmv.fi mmm.¢ Hmm.m vom.a shm.v mmmuo>¢ mH+ mmo.mm omm.m mm~.sm ~ms.m~ nam.v mmH.o~ manna sum> w + mam.m own mmm.m mm~.m Hmm smm.m mmumq m + mom.m mmo.~ mmm.m mmo.m «mm.H Nea.m sauces oa+ hnm.m mvv.a mm~.m mmm.m mmm.a mam.a Hamsm m + 0mm sma mom 0mm mmm mom HHwEm muw> muoumnomonumszo WHOUMmeO EHMM . (him weOUGH mQUHSOW Q UCMQ Hmuoa umsuo «Anuonma wolmoma OWCMSU OEOOCH HGGOHMM HMHOB .Hnnohma az< mmnmmma .mmozma ozs mNHm Emma wm mmo Bdmmmo Emdm 02¢ wmmmomflq mmWQDZdA mom mmUMDOw NEOUZH MWEEO 024 waafim 20mm QAOflMmD Om mqmzdm mam MZOUZH WDA¢> Q<>< N><><><>< In the two villages studied,male labor provided But weeding. almost all of the labor for harvesting and threshing. female labor was not observed to be excluded to the same extent for these two operations in other parts of the District. Total Employment Changes Including all paddy crops, the total number of labor days for paddy production increased 6.9 percent on the farms included in the survey as shown in Table 6.2. This was a net gain from a 14.4 percent increase for Kuruvai, a 21.1 percent decrease in Samba paddy labor days and a 13.2 percent increase in labor days used for Thaladi paddy production. 47See Appendix D for a description of each labor operation for paddy cultivation. t i .r : i i. i .. i .1 i i i i . . . _ Fli‘ \ l ‘ ii‘ , . . 1 \ (ii i ‘ |ilii .- 217 TABLE 6.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF LABOR DAYS USED IN PADDY PK)DUCI‘ION ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY CPOP AND TYPE OF LABOR, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Year and 1 ]' L Percent Type of Labor Kuruvai Samba Thaladi Total of Total ”19 1965—66 Family 2,826 444 2,759 6,029 8.4 Casual 24,285 12,260 24,610 61,115 85.0 Permanent 1,630 1,458 1,656 4,744 6.6 Total 28,741 14,162 29,025 71,928 100.0 1970—71 Family 3,023 336 2,971 6,330 8.2 (+5.0%) Casual 27,913 10,170 28,010 66,093 86.0 (+8.1%) Permanent 1,950 666 1,873 4,489 5.8 (—5.4%) Total 32,886 11,172 32,854 76,912 100.0 (+l4.4%)a (~21.l%) (+l3.2%) (+6.9%) aFigures in parentheses indicate changes from 1965-66. There are three factors which could be used to explain changes in the total number of labor days in paddy production on the village farms. These are changes in net area, changes in double-cropping, and changes in the production process. One would expect the number of labor days per acre to remain fairly constant with minor changes in area, ceterus paribus. Thus, if changes due to changes in net area and changes in area due to changes in double cropping are subtracted from the total change, the residual change in labor days used could be described as changes due to changes in the production process. This relationship is given below: 218 ATL- = AN.X. + AD.X. + AP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 and APi = ATLi - [ANiXi + ADiXi] where: paddy crop (Kuruvai, Samba, or Thaladi) F- N ATL- = change in total labor days for the ith paddy crop. X. = total labor days in base period for the ith paddy crop. AN- = relative change in area due to changes in net area for the ith paddy crop. AD. = relative change in area due to changes in double cropping for the ith paddy crop. APi = change in labor days due to changes in the production process. Using the above procedure, the change in the number of labor days due to each factor was calculated and is given in Table 6.3. In total for all paddy crops,the 6.9 percent increase in employment on these village farms is disaggregated into a 2.6 percent increase due to increased double cropping, a 4.4 percent increase in employment from changes in the pro- duction process, and a minor decrease, —0.1 percent, due to changes in net area. The Kuruvai crop showed the most increase in employment due to changes in the production process with 6.2 percent. This is as would be expected with the use of high yielding varieties for this crop. The Thaladi crop followed with a 4.2 percent increase from changes in the pro— duction process, and, in spite of a total decrease in employment 219 TABLE 6.3 SOURCE OF CHANGE IN PADDY LABOR DAYS BETWEEN 1965-66 AND 1970-71 ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP. Source of Change Kuruvai Samba‘ Thaladi Total -------------- Percent--------------- Net area 1.3 1 - 6.6 1.7 -0.1 Double cropping 6.9 -15.6 7.3 2.6 Production process 6.2 1.1 4.2 4.4 Total 14.4 -21.1‘ 13.2 6.9 of 21.1 percent for Samba, changes in the production process had a 1.1 percent positive effect on labor days used in Samba paddy production. In view of the fact that the total gross paddy area increased 11.3 percent for all of Thanjavur District, compared to 2.8 percent for the survey villages, the 6.9 percent increase in paddy employment in the survey villages probably under- estimates the increase in paddy employment for the Distirct as a whole. If a constant labor utilization per acre is assumed for the increased paddy area, total labor employed in paddy production would have increased 11.3 percent. And, if employ- ment per acre increased as it did in the survey villages, the total increase in paddy employment for the District may have been as high as 15.7 percent. QBgnge in Compgsition of Labor The composition of labor used changed somewhat between 1965-66 and 1970-71. While the contribution of family labor IE tC la 220 remained relatively constant at a little over 8 percent of total labor in paddy production, the proportion of casual labor increased and permanent labor decreased. Relative to the levels in 1965-66, casual labor employed in paddy production increased 8.1 percent as permanent labor decreased by 5.4 per- cent from the earlier period. In total, hired labor increased 7.1 percent, compared to a 5.0 percent increase in family labor. The decrease in use of permanent labor reflects an observed change in attitudes of laborers in general. Although there is more security in being a permanent laborer, it implies a master-servant relationship which is not consistent with the more independent attitude of agricultural laborers in the District. Variation in Labor Used by Farm Size and Tenure The average total labor days per gross paddy acre is given by farm size and tenure in Table 6.4. As is readily seen, the total number of labor days per acre appears to be dependent on farm size. The very small farm size group had over 14 more days labor days used per acre in 1970-71 than the very large farm.size group. In addition, each succeedingly larger farm size group, for all tenure groups combined had less average labor days per acre employed in producing paddy than the preceeding smaller farm size group. This is con- sistent with the finding by Staub [1971] who determined a significant negative relationship between farm size labor used per hectare in paddy production in Thanjavur District. 221 scum woodman o>aumamu musoa paw mononuGoHsm cw mousmwmm .mmummma AmH.e+e ham.m+e has.m+e lace Ame.m+v ciao.m+v m.3m a.m¢ N.Hm o.mm m.mm c.36 Hmuoa Lam.3+v o.sm s.mq 3.sm m.am panama Awm.~+o m.om m.¢m m.mm o.3s ucmamuuuoaso Amm.e+o o.me m.m¢ «.3m m.mm «.mm n.4m uoumumaoJmmmmwlu Hauoama mnmq m.ev «.mv c.mm o.mm H.mm Haves 3.mm m.me e.mm ~.sm panama 3.mm . o.mm 3.vm m.om pamamuuumaso m be m we «.me m.mm m.mm m.nm uoumuomoanmszo llllllllll IIIIIIIIIII'IIlllllllW§MQll WWIWOQH annoy 1+3o.o~e homuao.oav 1o3n30.me Am:3mumwuuuuMmumnmn «mung wanna Snaps: HHmEm HHmEmo nm> >H0> .thOhmH 92¢ wwlmmmd .mszmB 924 mNHm Zmdh Mm mum mzm dflflH> Hm>mbm 2H mqmzdm 20 ZOHBUDoomm Manda m0 mmu< meMU mum ammo mfl¢ v.w mnmda 222 Table 6.4 also indicates the variation in labor days per acre according to tenure. But the differences between tenure groups do not appear to be as important as differences between farm size groups. While the owner-tenants and tenants, on the average, employ about 7 more days per acre than owner- Operators, as was pointed out above, the difference between the very small and very large farm size was twice this quantity in 1970-71. In addition, the owner-operator average is heavily weighted by the large and very large farm size groups. Together they represent nearly 83 percent of the gross area of paddy in the owner-Operator group. The relative change in labor days per acre between the two periods was apparently affected by tenure. Owner-tenants and tenants had a relative increase of 2.5 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively, while owner-operators had a 5.2 percent increase. Variation in increase by farm size presents a mixed story. The largest relative increase occurred for the largest farm size group with 5.9 percent followed by a 5.7 percent increase by the large farm size group and then the very small farm size group with a 5.0 percent increase. In general, it would appear the larger farm size groups had the most relative change, but the variation does not permit any state- ment about direct relationships between farm size and relative change in labor days used in paddy production. What does seem clear, however, is the negative relationship between the level Of employment and farm size. 223 Changes by Labor Operation The distribution of relative change in paddy employment according to labor Operation is given in Table 6.5 along with the source Of the change. Although increases were measured for all but one Operation, there was considerable variation between labor Operations in the changes in employment. The plant protection and fertilizer application operations stand out as having the largest increase over the earlier period. But in terms of contribution to the total increase in employ- ment, harvesting was most important with 34.6 percent followed by transplanting and weeding with 28.2 and 23.6 percent, respectively. The plowing-puddling Operation decreased 11.9 percent and had a 17.7 percent negative effect on total change in paddy employment. Reasons for the negative changes in the plowing-puddling Operation will be discussed in the following section on mechanization. The increase in labor for plant protection and fertilizer application is in line with the increase in their use between the two periods. Fertilizer consumption increased 81 percent, and use of each type of plant protection showed dramatic increases.48 The increases in labor for harvesting and threshing was not in proportion to the increase in total production. Whereas 48The three types Of plant protection used were DDT-BBC, Endrine, and Folidol whichfincreased in use by 323 percent, 699 percent and 164 percent, respectively. 224 4A .Ilnlrut ..v,.L_. ¢.v m.N H.ol mom 0.2:” M 0 III H.O| N.HI MHOI mud ~.ot mcwwuwmwcmua m.m o.H H.OI m.h N.m mswzmmuzu vacuum ¢.m m.N o o N HH m.vm OGHSmOHSH umuwm .uww>um p.me~ m.h mno m.am~ m.OH cowuomuoud used” m.os a.m m o- ~.mp m.a nonsmonaamm umnwaauumm N.¢H o.m m.o: m.ma m.m~ mswcwwz o.v o.¢ H.o H.m ~.m~ mcwusmammcmwa m.m h.a m.m: >.H m.~ mmswaomwm mswaaam m.~3- 0.3 3.o- a.33n s.h3- maaaaosaumcnsoaa m.o s.o m.ou o.3 m.o hummusz In:nuuulllluuusnunulultlnl lllll unwound IIIIIIIIIIIIIII a lllll I IIIIIIIIII mumooum madmmono coauosooum cannon sons umz sowusummo :H mmssnu deuce CH madman pmmmcsnw cw mmcmmo massao unmonmm mo usmoumm omsmnu mo monsom sowusumdo .ZOHB¢MHQO momdd Mm .mmwdflnH> NN>MDm ZH mzmfim HAAZQm ZO ANIOBQH Q24 molmmmd ZQHSBmm mmwz¢m0 ho HUMDOm Qz< ZOHBUDDQNQ Manda 2H mw momma Eommmz ,HHmEm HHmEm mum> Ammuofiv muHm sham ouncoa .Hmow .thOhmH G24 wwlmwmd .NKDZWB 92¢ mNHm Zmdh rm ~mflU¢AAH> fifl>flbm 2H mzmmm m~.mv Hm.mv oo.ms vm.om o¢.e¢ mm.mv sm.m¢ mm.ms ,.uouomuu one HooHHnm mo.Hm mm.mv sm.mv os.¢m ms.mm mm.mm Hs.om mm.sm Tease .xooHHsm llllllllllllllllllllllll mommqmltlllltltcsnlllulIIIInstill:IIIII Meow HHCNHMWB +mnamm,_mm>ossm H .Hmww HMUMHmna~ mnfimm~ Hm>oudm HutchmH mmlmomH .thOhmH 024 owlmwmd aQOU Honda wm .mm0¢AHH> Nm>mDm ZH m2m¢h mumz¢m ZO mMUOQADm EBHZ UZOHd mm0804ma EBHB UZHSOHm OB DMMflmSOU mMUOHHDm MQZO mBHB mmod mmm UZHSOHA m0 BmOU m0¢mm>4 m.w mqmdB . 232 the data presented here whether or not increases in use of tractors for plowing had a positive or negative net effect on paddy employment. Employment Changes for Other Crops Although other crops are not nearly as important as paddy in providing employment in the two villages studied here, they do provide some additional employment. They have been included in the analysis to determine if major shifts have taken place which might have an effect in the total agricultural employment. As indicated in Chapter V, there was a 36 percent reduction in the area of summer crops while area in tree crops and annual crops remained nearly constant. In spite of the 25 percent reduction in total area under other crops, the number of days of employment on other crops increased slightly. Total labor days used on other crops increased 2 percent as shown in Table 6.10. The composition of the labor changed somewhat over the two periods with an 11 percent increase in casual labor, and unlike paddy production where permanent labor decreased, permanent labor on other crops increased 86 percent. But the number of days of permanent labor employment on other crops was very small. Thus, the total employment of permanent labor for all crOps still showed a reduction for the two periods. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-I'::f__________________¥ 233 TABLE 6.10 TOTAL LABOR DAYS USED FOR OTHER CROPS ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY LABOR TYPES, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Year Type of Labor Family *,[’ Casual If Permanent ] Total --------------------- Days-——--—---*----------- 1965-66 355 2,178 95 2,628 1970-71 394 2,098 177 2,669 Change Days +39 —80 +82 +41 Percent fll% - 4% +86% + 2% Table 6.11 indicates the total agricultural employment for the two periods according to type of labor. Total agri- cultural employment for all crops increased 6.7 percent between 1965—66 and 1970—71. This was composed of a 5.3 percent increase in family labor, a 7.7 percent increase in casual labor, and a 3.6 percent decrease in permanent labor. Total hired labor increased by 6.9 percent. Thus, the employment on other crops had a slight dampen- ing effect on total agricultural employment. Whereas total paddy employment increased by 6.9 percent, labor employed on other crops increased 1.6 percent which combined with the increase in paddy employment produced the 6.7 percent increase in total agricultural labor. Employment Changes for Agricultural Households Farm Operators There are three basic sources from which farm operator C , Jun.»- -‘ , IIIIIIIIIIIIII:_____________________________—________I’* " 234 TABLE 6.11 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LABOR DAYS USED ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY LABOR TYPES, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Year Ty‘e of Labor Family Casual? ' Permanent ‘Total 1965-66 6,384 63,333 4,839 74,556 1970-71 6,724 68,191 4,666 79,581 Change days +340 +4,858 —l73 +5,025 Percent +5;3% " +7.7% ‘ ~3.6% ‘ +6.7% households can secure employment. These include agricultural employment on their own farnyagricultural employment on other farms and nonagricultural employment. Employment within agriculture can be divided between paddy and other crops. The average total number of days of employment from all of these sources is given in Table 6.12. The total number of days of employment per household increased from 103.5 days in 1965—66 to 114.0 days in 1970-71 for a 10.1 percent increase. Most of this increase was in the form of nonagricultural employment. While total agricultural employment increased 1.8 days, the average nonagricultural employment per household increased 8.8 days. Agricultural Employment The measurement of agricultural labor posed a particular problem with respect to labor on their own farms. What is presented here is the number of days of physical labor involved 23S o.°cH o.ooH H.OH+ m.OH+ c.4HH m.mOH unassommsu Huumw m.mN o.HN m.ov+ m.m + m.om N.HN usefihOHmao HousuHsOHHmmcoz N.Nh o.mh H.N + m.H + m.mm N.Hm unmEMOHmfim HounuHaoHumo Hobos mHNm m.mm o.H I o.o I H.hm 5.5m Hence N m o.m ¢.mH+ o.o + N.N H.m ucnuo m.m~ m.mm m.m u «.H . «.mm m.¢m sauna manna Hmnuo N.ov m.Ne m.m + v.N + ¢.wv o.vv Hence ¢.~ m.~ m.~H+ m.o + s.~ e.~ maouo Hofio m.mm ~.oe o.m + H.N + s.mq o.Hq sauna Sham mun ucmEmoneu HMHaUHsoHH d Iallusoouomm IIIIIIIII Illmzmmlulllll Hench H oeume unasNonsm Huuos Igmmmouom, “mmmnlli HsuosmH em:memH no cOHuHomoum mwmccnu .HbthmH 02¢ mwlmwma .NUMDOm Bzmzwonmzm Mm .mfiwdqu> Mm>mDm ZH Odommmoom moadmmmohsmdh mqmidm mam BZHZHOAQEN ho mafia m0 mmmzoz flwflmm>< NH.m NHNdH 236 in the production Of the crops. It does not include the time involved in the management or supervision Of hired labor for these crOps. Although this form Of employment on their own farm.may be considerable, no logical method was found to estimate the quantity of employment for management and supervision activities. In addition, these employment measures do not take into account the time spent on agriculturally related activities such as animal husbandry and repairs made on agricultural implements and tools. Thus, the figures presented for farm Operator employment (n1 their own farm are biased downwards to the extent the managerial and other agricultural activities have not been included. In spite of this deficiency, the data does indicate the direction Of change and, to the extent family labor was involved in physical labor, a measure Of change in employment. Although the proportion of agricultural employment relative to total employment decreased between the two periods, there was an increase of 1.8 days or a 2.1 percent increase in agricultural employment per farm Operator household. And while family labor hired out to other farms decreased slightly (1.6 percent) family labor days on their own farm increased 5.5 percent. Nonagricultural Employment As was indicated in Chapter III, the two villages were Chosen, in part, because Of their differences in proximity 237 to a large market center. Marudanallur was relatively close (2 1/2 miles) to Kumbakonam which has a population of about 100,000 while Karuppur is more isolated, being 10 miles away from Kumbakonam and not near any other major town in the District. The hypothesis that there may be more nonagricultural employment for farm Operators near a large town than farther away did not materialize for the two villages studied here. As is shown in Table 6.13 there were more farm Operators involved in nonagricultural employment in Karuppur, the village farther away, than Marudanallur, which was in closer proximity to the large town, and the farm Operators in Karuppur had an increase in nonagricultural employment while it remained the same in Marudanallur. Most of the nonagricultural jobs were located within the village.51 In general, the nonagricultural employment was related to institutions within the village including village administration, education, post office, and village extension. The rest of the nonagricultural employment was menial jobs in relation to these institutions or in general village activities. Although the days Of nonagricultural employment increased from 21.7 to 30.5 days for the average household 51The only nonagricultural employment which could be determined as being outside the village was for some school teachers who taught in neighboring villages and a film producer who worked temporarily in Madras, 200 miles away. 238 TABLE 6.13 TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT FOR SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN KARUPPUR AND MARUDANALLUR, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Village ' 1965-66‘ '=*- 1970.71 " Percent NO. “ *fi:§§‘*’ ' No. ' "DEiE" Chang5__ Karuppur 10 1,816 16 3,085 +70 Marudanallur 6 1,331 6 1,331 0 Total 16 3,147‘ 22 ‘ 4,416‘ ’ ‘+40 aThe number Of days was computed at the rate of 250 days for a full year Of employment. which was a. 40 percent increase between the two periods, the number of people involved in nonagricultural employment was rather minor. In 1970-71 only 15 percent Of the farm Operators were, in any way, involved in nonagricultural employment. This was an increase from 11 percent in 1965-66. Thus, even though nonagricultural employment is relatively important in the total employment picture, a small proportion of farm Operators participate in this employment source. There may be two reasons for the lack of participation in nonagricultural employment in the nearby town (Kumbakonam) on the part Of farm Operators in Marudanallur. First, the availability Of nonagricultural employment is very limited. There is no major industry in Kumbakonam or in Thanjavur District as a whole which could be expected tO absorb any significant number Of people. Second, this finding may support Scarlett Epstein's hypothesis that if there are 239 Opportunities for economic improvement in agriculture, they will not need to or be forced to look to other occupations. (Epstein, 1962] Though the Opportunities for employment in agriculture may not have greatly improved, they were probably better or at least more readily available than Opportunities outside Of agriculture. Effect of Tenure As shown in Table 6.14, there is considerable difference in employment per household between the different tenure classifications. While the rate Of increase in total employ- ment was about the same for all three tenure types, the level of employment as well as importance of each employment source show sharp differences. In 1970-71 owner-Operators had an average total employment per household Of 91.7 days, and owner-tenants averaged 100.2 days per household while tenants had an average of 150.2 days total employment per household than either owner-operators or owner-tenants. The tenants also showed the greatest increase in employment with 14 percent while owner-operators and owner-tenants increased 9 and 4 percent, respectively. With the exception Of the owner-Operator group, the proportions from each employment source remained relatively stable between 1965-66 and 1970-71. As indicated in Table 6.15, owner-operators had about the same relative prOportion of employment on their'own farms but had a sharp decrease in family labor hired out to other farms and a corresponding .mmtmme Eonm mmcmno mamuemoumm ODMUHoGH mommnpqmumm QH mmHDmHmm iwsH+v Aws+v Awm+e N.omH «.00H s.Hm m.~mH H.sm H.sw nqmsNoHaam Hobos Awo~+e Awe e 1mmm+e o.om m.~ s.m+ o.m~ m.~ m.m~ ucmsmoHasm HonouHOOHHmmsoz Aw~H+e Ans+v AwsHua ~.oNH m.sm o.ms v.5oH e.mm m.sm acosNoHasm HOMODHOOHHOO Houoa AwHN+V AWHIV AwsNuv e.mm s.mm m.e~ m.me o.s~ s.em Hmuoe H.m 5.0 m.m m.H s.o 0.0 macho “mane w m.mm o.m~ m.om m.ss e.mm m.om scams 2 wEHmm Hmnpo Awm+v Awm+v miwm+v Haves e.Hw m.ms m.ms m.mm e.mo «.mH moose uwnbo m.m H.m H.H s.~ m.s ~.H Nessa m.mm m.ms «.mH v.em s.sm m.sH Esme ago unmENOHmEm HonouHooHHmfl mama . unease — become Houoummo unmowa “cocoa HODMHOMO IHOGBO Inwazo Inwc3o IMOGBO HnnosmH mmlmomH wonoom ucmENOHmEm .thOhmH QZ¢ mmlmwma .MMDZMB Mm ~MUMDOm BZMEMOHmEm Mm .mflUflAHH> wm>mDm ZH aqommmbom moammmmo SMfim mum24m mmm BZMZNOHQZM m0 mwda m0 mmmSDZ m0¢mm>¢ vH.m qudfi 241 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH unosNonsm Hmuos ON N om OH O mm pamssonsm HOMODHDUHHmmcoz OO Om om HO Om me nsosNOHosm HMHSDHDUHHOO HmuOB mm vN mm hm mm me mfiuom HOCDO HO we HN we NO NN Esme :30 unwEMOHmEm HouspHOOHHm¢ unwouuu usmcma “cocoa “Opmnmmo panama panama Hoemummo lumcso numczo aumsso Ismnzo Hnloan owlmmmH quE>OHmEm .thOhmH QZd molmmma .HMDZMB Mm 4mmw¢AHH> NM>MDm ZH modommmbom m08¢mmmo 2m¢m mflmzflm mom MUMDOm BZMEWOHmSm m0¢ mH.m mqmfia “.in-"5‘ ' 242 increase in nonagricultural employment which accounted for 50 percent Of their total employment in 1970-71. The owner-tenants and tenants involve themselves in the physical labor aspect of their own agricultural production much more than owner-Operators. The number of owner-Operator family labor days contributai to their own agricultural pro- duction is less than one-third the family labor contributed by owner-tenants and tenants. But the number of labor days Of family labor on other farms is about the same for owner- Operators and owner-tenants in 1970—71 while the tenants had more than twice as much outside agricultural labor. This would seem to imply that the tenant households are more con- strained by their size Of farm than the owner-operators and owner-tenants in their search for employment. On a per acre basis tenants had 12.8 family labor days compared to 11.3 for owner-tenants and only 1.1 day per acre for owner-Operators. The effect Of farm size will be explored in more detail in the following section. Effect Of Farm Size The average number Of days Of employment for each farm size group is presented in Table 6.16. The averages contained therein indicate a rather strong negative relationship between farm size and the average number of labor days worked per household. The total number of days of employment for the very large farm size group is less than one-tenth that of the small and very small.farm size groups. 243 TABLE 6 . 16 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS OF EMPLOYMENT PER SAMPLE FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY EMPLOYMENT SOURCE, BY FARM SIZE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Employment Source/Year Farm Size (Acres) Very Very Small Small Medium Large Large (O-2.5) (2.51—5) (5.01—10) (10.01—20) (20.01+) 3 ya 1965-66 AgricuItural Employment Own Farm: Paddy 32.8 66.1 29.4 28.7 0 other crops 1.6 4.3 1.4 2.2 0 Total 34.4 70 4 30.8 30 8 0 other Farms: Paddy 51.8 28.4 0 0 0 other crops 6.1 0.6 0 0 O otal 57 9 29.0 0 0 Total agricultural employment 92.3 99.4 30.8 30.8 0 Nonagricultural Employment 22.4 25.5 22.7 0 9.2 Total Employment 114.6 124.9 53.5 30.8 9.2 , 1970—71 AgricuItural Employment Own Farm- Paddy 32.6 72.1 30.3 29.7 0 other crops 1.9 4.8 1.4 2.0 0 Total 34.5 7 .9 31.6 31.7 D (0a,)a (+9%) (+33) (+32) Other Farms: Padd 46.8 32.1 0 0 0 other crops 6.8 1.4 0 0 C Total 53.5 33. 0 0 0 (-8%) (+16%) Total agricultural employment 88.1 110.0 31.6 31.7 o Nonagricultural Employment 36.6 25.5 . 0 11.6 (+63%) (0%) (100%) (+26%) Total Employment 124.7 135.9 77.0 31.7 . (+9%) (+9%) (+44%) (+3%) (+26%) a'Percentage change from 1965—66. 244 Differences in the source of emplOyment are also readily apparent. Farm operator households with greater than 20 acres did not have any agricultural employment either on their own farm or other farms. The only employment source this group (which were all Brahmins and owner—operators) had was from nonagricultural employment.52 Only the small and very small farm size groups were employed on other farms. And the very small farm size groups had more outside employment which appears to compensate somewhat for their lack of employment Opportunities on their own farms. Even though the small farm size group had more than twice as many family labor days than the very small farm size group employed in their own paddy production, the very small farm size group applied an average of 21 family labor days per gross acre of paddy compared to 9 days of family labor for the small farm size group. This corres— ponds to two family labor days for the medium farm size group and only one family labor day per acre for the large farm size group. This is in line with the Staub [1971] who found a significant negative relationship between family labor per hectare in paddy production and farm size. Effect Of Caste on Employment As was described in Chapter II, the traditional role Of the Brahmin was as a landowner with non—Brahmins being 2It must be remembered that this data does not include the managerial and supervisory functions of the agricultural production process which could be rather sizeable for this group. 245 tenants, and Harijans were traditionally agricultural laborers. Although this is not true in the absolute sense, there is a definite tendency in that direction relative to agricultural labor as shown in Table 6.17. In total, the average Harijan households averaged 155.7 days, and Brahmins had only 0.8 days in 1970-71.53 While Brahmin employment was nearly all nonagri- cultural, about one-third of non—Brahmin employment was non- agricultural, and only about one-tenth Of total employment for Harijans came from nonagricultural employment in 1970-71 even though this source increased by 50 percent from 1965-66. In total, the average Brahmin household recorded only 34.3 days of employment in 1970-71 which was a 78 percent increase from 1965-66 because of increased nonagricultural employment. This compares to 102 days (an increase of 14 percent) for the average non-Brahmin household and 174 days (an increase Of 3 percent) for the average Harijan household. Although there were measurement errors inherent in the accounting of employment because no measurement was made Of managerial and supervisory activities in agricultural produc- tion, the general tendency Of reduced employment in Brahmin households relative to non-Brahmin and Harijan households is in line with the ascribed socio-economic status of Brahmins in the society. 53There was only one Brahmin respondent who indicated he had any family labor in agricultural production, and all of it was on his own farm. Again, the problem Of measurement of managerial and supervisory roles must be kept in mind. 246 .mmImoaH scum mosses mmousooumm ouOOHosH ancsusmusm sH nousmwmo + Aware WmMMW Awwwow m.vm m.moH h.mw m.mH unmEMOHmEfi Hmuoa A¢OO+O Ammm+e AaHO+O . . as a . . . .NH m ON m mH use OH em M NH O mm m mm N HousuHsOHumocoz . . . H.OOH O.~O O.O uaosNoHasa O mmH v mm m o HousuHoOHumd Houoa AwOHIV “mvH+v 9.0m m.vN 0 «.mm m.HN o Houoa O.H e.m O O.~ m.O O maouo guano H.OO H.OH O O.OO «.5H O Nessa "meson Honuo AwOH+V AwN+v sawov O.mh m.H¢ m.c O.mm N.Hw m.o Hsuoa m.m O.m o o.m v.N o macho Honuo «.NO 0.0m 0.0 H.mO 0.0m 0.0 Noose "sham :30 L H usmENonew HonsuHsOHum< ‘i---.l|llil.|l"lllu"nlluli |||||| alls'mk ”a """"" .._l """""" l """ III-II. summusma smsfloumIs02fi.IcHE£snm cananmmIb GHEMIHmIGOZH adenoum HAIOOOH OO OOOH mousom pamemoHasm .HOIOOOH oza OOIOOOH .msmao am .mmuaaaH> unseen 2H oaoemmoom mosammmo seam seesaw mum szmssoamzm so mean so amazoz mo4mm>< hH.@ figm¢9 —:_—_V 247 Landless Laborers As was the case with farm Operators, employment for landless laborers is divided between agricultural and non- agricultural labor. However, since by definition landless laborers do not Operate any land, their only source of agricul- tural labor is on farms Operated by other people. Agricultural labor on these farms is divided here between paddy and other crops. The average total number of days Of employment per household is given in Table 6.18. Agricultural Employment The total number of days of employment per household increased from 189 days in 1965-66 to 208 days in 1970—71 for a 10.1 percent increase. Although nonagricultural employ- ment shows the largest relative increase, agricultural labor contributed the most in absolute terms. The number of labor days for paddy increased 12 days for a 7.6 percent increase, and labor on other crops increased 4 days for a 14.8 percent increase. In total, nearly all Of the employment recorded in the labor survey was from agricultural labor. In 1970-71, 97 percent of total employment came from agricultural labor which was down slightly from 1965—66 when agricultural labor represented 98 percent of total employment. The 7.6 percent increase in paddy labor is in line with the increase in hired labor used in paddy production recorded in the farm Operator survey which showed a 7.1 percent increase. O.OOH o.ooH H.OH+ mH+ mON mmH ucomNOHmsfl Hsuoa v.m H.N o.m>+ m + N v newshonEm % HousuHsOHumscoz 2 m.om m.Om o.m + OH+ HON mmH Hsuoe m.vH m.vH m.vH+ v + Hm ON nacho Honuo O.Hm o.mm 0.0 + NH+ OOH mmH N mm H usOeNOHmmfi HousuHOOHum4 IIIIIIIImrmnl IIIIII I WI . . .uamoumm , exam. aOIOOOH OOIOOOH IIIIIwawanH as Haves omenso mo soHuuomoum mousom usesNOHQEO HOIOOOH O24 OOIOOOH .momsom szmzsogmzm um .Oqommmoom mmmomaq mmmaozaq mqmzam sma szmzsoqmsa so mean so mmmzaz mocmm>a mH.m mqmfla 249 In addition to measurement errors, the fact that the two rates of increase are not exactly the same could be due to the type of labor market from which farm operators hire labor and to which landless laborers enter. The agricultural labor market is larger than the village boundaries. During times Of heavy demand for labor, such as at transplanting and harvesting, farm Operators employ a part Of their labor requirements from other villages. The converse is also true for laborers. When the labor requirements are low in the village, landless laborers seek employment in other villages. As shown in Table 6.19, the relative prOportion Of paddy employment in other villages changed somewhat between the two periods. There was a reduction in the proportion Of Kuruvai and Thaladi labor days employed in other villages while there was an increase in the number Of labor days employed in Samba paddy production in other villages. This would follow from the fact that Kuruvai and Thaladi paddy area increased and Samba area decreased in total for the two villages. The proportion Of labor days employed in other villages on other crops remained quite stable at a little over 23 percent. Nonagricultural Employment Although there was no relationship between proximity to a large town and extent Of nonagricultural employment for farm Operators, the evidence given in Table 6.20 would tend to support.thishypothesis for landless laborers. As the information appears, Karuppur, the village of greater distance from the 250 TABLE 6.19 RELATIVE PROPORTION OF PADDY AND OTHER CROP EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER VILLAGES FOR SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLDS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Year Kuruvai Samba Thaladi Other Crops Percent 1965—66 8.9 38.1 6.3 23.1 1970—71 7.4 42.9 4.7 - 23.3 TABLE 6.20 TOTAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT FOR SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLDS IN KARUPPUR AND MARUDANALLUR, 1965-66 AND 1970—71 Village 1965—66 g~l970-71 Percent No. Days NO. Days Change Karuppur l 250 1 250 0 Marudanallur 3 22 7 198 +800 Total 4 272 8 448 + 65 251 large town, had more total nonagricultural employment. But this single Observation was employed as household labor on a full time basis in both years. In Marudanallur, all Of the nonagricultural employment was on a part-time basis. And there was an eight-fold increase in the number Of days Of employment with the number of people employed in nonagricultural labor increasing from three to seven. Two Of the three in 1965-66 worked in the nearby large town, and the third worked in a town 13 miles away. Out of the seven employed in nonagricultural labor in 1970-71, four were employed in the nearby large town with two employed in a town 40 miles away and one worked in a town 13 miles from Marudanallur. All of the employment in nonagricultural labor for the landless laborers in Marudanallur was of an unskilled nature. The types Of labor included road repair, house repair, wood chOpping, cart driving, and working in an ice factory. Even though there was a sizeable relative increase in nonagricultural employment, the proportion of total employment secured from.this source was quite minor. In 1970-71 only 3.4 percent Of total employment was from nonagricultural sources compared to 2.1 percent in 1965-66. And only 12 percent of the landless laborers included in the survey were employed outside of agriculture in 1970-71. But this was up from the 6 percent level in 1965-66. Therefore, the tendency, even though relatively unimportant in terms of total employment, was in the direction of more nonagricultural employment for landless laborers. 252 Effect Of Labor Type As brought out several times in this chapter, there are two types Of landless laborers, those that are attached to a particular farm Operator on a permanent basis (permanent laborers) and casual laborers hired on a daily basis. Since some households have members in both categories, a third group of landless laborer households is formed. Although the total number Of permanent laborers repre- sented in this survey was rather small (11.3 percent Of all agricultural laborers), the results given in Table 6.21 do give an indication Of the differences between casual and permanent laborers in the total labor days worked in agricul- ture. Again, the number Of days Of agricultural labor per household increased for all categories Of landless laborers. Those households with permanent labor had considerably more agricultural labor employment than casual laborer households. The reason for the higher level Of employment for house- holds with casual and permanent laborers compared to households with only casual laborers is because there were more laborers per households with both casual and permanent laborers as shown in Table 6.22. On the other hand, households with just permanent laborers had about 50 percent more labor days per person than either households with only casual laborers or households with both casual and permanent laborers.54 54Although there were differences between 1965-66 and 1970-71 in the number Of laborers per household, these dif- ferences were not significant even at the 30 percent level using the Chi-Square test with the sample size in this survey. 253 TABLE 6.21 AVERAGE NUMBER OF PADDY AND OTHER CROP LABOR DAYS PER SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY LABOR TYPE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Type of Labor, Source Labor Days Per Household l965u66 1970—71 Percent Change Casual (58)a Paddy 152 161 + 5.9 other crops 22 24 + 9.1 Total 174 185 + 6.3 Casual and Permanent (4) Paddy 222 264 +18.9 Other crops 24 34 +4l.7 Total 246 298 +21.l Permanent (5) Paddy 176 204 +15.9 Other crops 82 104 +26.8 Total 258 308 +l9.4 aNumber of households in each group. TABLE 6.22 AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE LABORERS PER SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY LABOR TYPE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Labor Type 1965-66 1970-71 Male Female Total Male Female Total— Casual 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.2 0.9 2.1 Casual and Permanent 1.8 1.2 3.0 2.2 1.5 3.7 Permanent 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 254 As was shown earlier, the use Of permanent laborers by farm Operators was on the decline. But for those landless laborers who remain, it would appear they have a sizeable advantage in having more continuous employment available to them compared tO casual laborers. This finding is consistent with the statements made earlier about the relative security Of permanent laborers compared to casual. Although a casual laborer gains some independence, at least from a particular farm Operator, they may also loose a considerable quantity Of employment in the process Of change. Effect Of Caste As one would expect, there were no Brahmin landless laborers in either of the survey villages. Thus, the landless laborers can be divided generally between non-Brahmin and Harijan. By caste, the Harijan households had more labor days as well as a greater increase in employment in agricul- ture than non—Brahmin as shown in Table 6.23. Harijan households had 20 percent more agricultural labor days than non-Brahmins in 1970-71 and 15 percent more in 1965-66. The reason for Harijan households having more labor days in agricultural employment is because more of the Harijan women are engaged in agricultural labor than non-Brahmin women as shown in Table 6.24. The variation in the proportion Of males and females to total agricultural laborers in each caste was found to be significant at the 1 percent level for 255 TABLE 6.23 AVERAGE NUMBER OF PADDY AND OTHER CROP LABOR DAYS PER SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY CASTE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Caste, Source Labor Da 5 Per Household Non—Brahmin (22) a Paddy Other crops Total Harijan (45) Paddy Other crops Total 194 aNumber Of households in each group. TABLE 6.24 AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALE AND FEMALE LABORERS PER SAMPLE LANDLESS LABORER HOUSEHOLD IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY CASTE, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Caste 1965-66 ' 1970-71 Male I Female 1 Total | Male I Female ( Total Non-Brahmin 1.2 0.3 1.5 1.4 0.4 1.8 Harijan 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.2 1.2 2.4 Total 1.1 0.9 2.0 1.3 0.9 2.2 ’— 256 both periods.55 Thus, there was a significantly larger pro- portion of Harijan women per household working as agricultural laborers in both years. For Harijans the ratio of women to men working in agricultural labor is about 1 to 1. Whereas, for non-Brahmins the ratio is less than 1 to 3. This is consistent with the traditional role of Harijans as agricultural laborers. And although the non—Brahmin men may be forced to work in agricultural labor to support the family for lack Of any land of their own to operate, they may be more hesitant, from a status standpoint, to also have the women work in the fields as agricultural laborers. Compared to farm operators, it would appear that the landless laborers are much more dependent on agriculture for employment than are farm operators. While about one— fourth of total employment comes from nonagricultural sources for farm Operators, it was a negligible source of employment for landless laborers with only 3 and 2 percent, respectively of total employment for 1970—71 and 1965—66. Because Of this, changes in agricultural employment become all the more impor— tant for landless laborers. As was seen in the previous dis- cussion, the average landless laborer household had an 8.6 percent increase in agricultural labor days which was mostly from increased paddy labor. Thus, the increases in paddy production had an important positive effect on the number of labor days of employment for landless laborer households. 55The calculated value of Chi-Square is 7.24 for 1965-66 and 7.22 for 1970—71 which compared to the tabular value of 6.64 at the 1 percent level is significant in both cases. CHAPTER VII FACTORS AFFECTING DISTRIBUTION OF PADDY INCOME AMONG FARM OPERATORS The purpose Of this chapter is to determine the important factors which caused the very skewed distribution Of income from paddy production as shown in Chapter V. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first part investi— gates the importance Of socio—economic variables in explaining the distribution of paddy income by fitting the variables to a linear regression function. The second part tests the importance of the variation in paddy prices received by farm operators. By assuming a constant price for paddy for all farmers in each period, it will indicate how the distribution of income would have changed with only changes in production and no variability among farmers in the price of paddy they received. The third part will examine the production relation— ships between inputs and outputs of paddy using a Cobb-Douglas production function for farm operatOrs divided between small and large farm sizes. Comparisons between the estimated regression coefficients and marginal productivities are made to determine any differences in resource allocation between small and large farms. 258 Effects of SociO-Economic Variables From the standpoint of forming possible policies to adjust the distribution of income, it is imperitive to have knowledge Of the characteristics most important in determina- tion of income. For example, if the caste Of the individuals is the most important determinant of size Of income, it would present very serious problems to legislate for the effects of caste. The present analysis looks at six socio-economic characteristics which could be hypothesized as being associated with the size Of income. The general categories of character- istics are physical capital, human capital and caste. The physical capital variables include the area Of Operational holding in paddy production, the cropping intensity, and the percent Of Operated area owned as a continuous variable for measuring the effect of tenure. As was seen in Chapter V, there was a great amount of variation in income from paddy production according to farm size with farm operators with the largest area receiving many times the income from paddy for the very small farm Operators. Thus, one would expect a very strong relationship between area Operated and paddy income. Still very important but to a somewhat lesser degree, the income from paddy production varied with the type Of tenure. The average owner-Operator had higher incomes from paddy production than owner-tenants or tenants within each farm size category. The percent owned of total operated area 259 area should therefore have a positive effect on paddy income. The crOpping intensity or percent of paddy land double cropped should also show a positive effect on total paddy income. The net return per acre to the farm Operator was about twice as much for the Kuruvai-Thaladi combination Of paddy crops compared to growing only a Samba paddy crop. As a surrogate for human capital, age and education are included as measureable continuous variables. Though the formal education in the area does not normally include instruc- tion in farming practices,the level of attained education should be an index of the ability of farmers to adjust to new ideas and practices. A higher level Of education should have a positive effect on paddy income. The age of the farm opera- tor should be a;measure Of the accumulation of experience in operating a farm. As such, one would expect age to have a positive effect on paddy income. There was also considerable differences in income from paddy production between the general caste categories with Brahminshaving much higher incomes from paddy than other castes. Thus, the lower caste categories‘weneexpected to have a negative effect on paddy income. But the question to be answered is whether or not caste was as important as other socio-economic variables in determining income from paddy. The functional relationship tO measure the effects Of these socio-economic variables fitted by ordinary least squares is as follows: 260 Y = a + le1 + bzx2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + bsx5 + b6x6 + b7x7 + e where: Y = paddy income, rupees a = constant term X1 = age Of farm Operator, years X2 = level of education, years X3 = net operated paddy area, acres X4 = percent owned Of net Operated area X5 = paddy cropping intensity (gross paddy area % net paddy area) X6 = l for Non-Brahmin = 0 for other castes X7 = l for Harijans = 0 for other castes error term e All Of the Specified variables in the above equation are continuous except for caste which is treated as a zero-one (dummy) variable to test whether or not castes other than Brahmin have an effect on paddy income after the other socio- economic variables are taken into consideration. The coeffi- cients were estimated for both periods, separately to determine any variation Of the effects of the socio-economic variables on paddy income. The estimates Of the coefficients along with the standard errors and levels Of significance for each period are shown in Table 7.1. The results indicate that the set of variables included mmOO.O I Na mmms.O I Nm mmO. mO.NOOH sm.OmH I NOO. NN.O¢HH OO.HNN I ex :mHHnmm ONO. mm.OmmH sm.Omm I Ohm. 4H.NmOH OO.HmO I Ox aHsamnmIaoz “mmHanIHg EH6 unmoumuqH OHH. HO.OMNH ms.NmOH AMO. Om.mvs sm.mOmH ms NpHmamunH maHOmoHO HON. HO.mss Om.OOO OOO. OO.NNm OO.OOm ex amaze mans unmoumm 1 mm mOOO.v Om.Nm OH.mmm mOOO.v Nm.HN mm.Nsm ms mans seams Ooumsmao umz Nmm. AO.AOH HA.OOH MOO. OO.Hs OH.Hm Nx finaumosao no Hm>mq OHN. HO.HN OH.Om Omw. OH.HN Ob.m Hx mOa msO. mO.mmom mO.NONOI NOH. HO.HOOH NO.OOONI m sump pamumcoo ORBOHmdeHm _ House DOOHOHmwmoo masonflmem E ustOHmmooo H MO HON/w.— .mvumfixnflm “HO HE gm HAIOAOH OOImOOH mHQMHnm> .AmaH I GO HNIOOOH Oza OOImOOH .mmuaaqH> smsmam 2H mmoaammOO zmam mqazaw mom msOOZH woman 20 magmaHma> OHsozoomiOHOOm so meamHOHmmmco omeazHamm MK mama. 262 in physical capital have the most influence on paddy income. The signs of the coefficients are in the expected direction, and the coefficients Of the variables included in this set are the only variables of all the socio—economic variables which are significant. Net Operated area is the most signi- ficant variable of the three variables representing physical capital being significant at less than the .05 percent level. The percent Of paddy area owned and cropping intensity appeared to be more important in the earlier period than the latter period with lower indicated levels of significance in the earlier period. While the percent area owned and cropping intensity were significant at the 6 and 4 percent level, respectively, in the 1965-66 paddy crop session, the level of significance was only 26 and 12 percent, respectively, in 1970—71 for these two variables. The decline in signi— ficance Of percent Of area owned would seem to be related to the fact that tenants pay a fixed quantity Of their harvest to the landlords. As a proportion of total harvest, this payment decreased between the two periods with the tenants retaining a larger prOportion Of the total harvest. The two variables, age and level Of education, repre- senting human capital were not found to be of any significant importance in determining paddy income in either year. While the coefficient for both age and education were positive, as expected, neither one was significantly different from 263 zero either year. However, the coefficient for both age and education did move closer towards significance in 1970-71. This would suggest that human capital was more important after the introduction of technological change than before. Caste, represented by dummy variables for non-Brahmin and Harijan farm Operators, was not a significant factor in determining paddy income. Both dummy variables exerted a negative influence on paddy income in each year as pre— dicted earlier, but neither coefficient was significantly different from zero. Thus, caste,by itself,was not found to be a direct cause of differences in paddy income. This analysis suggests that the most important single variable in determination of paddy income is the net operated area. The other physical capital variables of percent Of paddy area owned and cropping intensity did have some effect, being more significant in 1965-66 than in 1970-71. But paddy land area is the dominant variable in this sociOv economic analysis. This does not mean, however, that other socio—economic variables, particularly caste, are not associated with levels of paddy income. Brahmins on the average did have much ' higher incomes from paddy than other castes. But the causality is indirect. Caste, by itself, does not necessarily cause differences in income. Instead, caste does imply more property rights in the form of more ownership and control of 264 land which,in turn,is the major cause of variations in paddy income. From the standpoint of policy formation, the most important lever in changing distributions of income from paddy production would be adjustments in the area Of land operated. Presently, there is a 15 acre limit on the area of land owned. But this is on an individual basis. A household could own up to 15 acres for every individual in that household. This is not very limiting except for extremely large landowners. In the case of the two villages studied here, there were 12 households who Operated more than 15 acres. The average area operated for these 12 households was 46.75 acres. If the policy-makers were seriously interested in adjusting the distribution of income, they could set a limit on the area of land owned per household instead Of per individual as it now stands. This would significantly reduce the household incomes who are presently at the top end of the income scale which would presumably be distributed among the rest Of the agricultural population. Effects Of Variation in Paddy Price As was shown in Chapter IV, there was a significant positive relationship between the price of paddy a farm Operator received and the quantity of paddy he sold and the time of sale in 1970-71. These factors were not important in determining prices received for paddy in the earlier 265 period. Those who received the higher prices for paddy in 1970-71 were mostly in the very large farm size category. And as was brought out in Chapter IV, the average farm Operator in this group had about twice as much price effect on their increase in total value product as other farm Operators. This group of farmers also had the most increase in paddy income, both relatively and absolutely, compared to other farm size groups, as well as the highest average income from paddy in each period. “.2 The Objective here is to determine what the distribu- tion Of income from paddy production would have been if all farmers had received the same price for paddy.56 TO accom— plish this, the average price (unweighted) was used to cal- culate each farm operator's value paddy incomes. This assumption of a common price for paddy affects net value income from paddy production in two ways. For example, if the actual price received for paddy was higher than the average price, the total value product would be reduced accordingly. Secondly, the cost of production would also be decreased since nearly 90 percent of all wages paid to hired labor was paid in kind which was valued as the opportunity cost of paddy sales. The net effect, Of course, would be negative since the cost of wages paid in kind to 56This is necessarily based on the assumption that all paddy sales would take place at harvest time since the price received for paddy which was stored for later sale should reflect the cost of that storage. 266 hired labor was a fraction of total value product. The Opposite effects appear when the average paddy price assumed in this simulation was higher than the price of paddy received by the farm Operator. The distribution of paddy income with the assumption of equal paddy price for all farm operators compared to the distribution of paddy income using actual prices received is given in Table 7.2. Looking at the Gini ratios, it is evident that the distribution Of paddy income would have been in the direction of greater equality with equal paddy prices for all farm Operators in each period instead of the virtually unchanged distribution Of income with recorded prices for paddy. Whereas the Gini ratios increased by .002 with recorded paddy prices for each farm operator, the Gini ratio decreased by .024 when equal prices are assumed for all farm operators. The assumption of equal paddy prices had the effect of increasing the share of total paddy income received by the tOp ordinal groups in l965~66. This result occurred because the very large farm operators, who were at the top end of the paddy income array, had paddy prices which were 5 per— cent lower than the average paddy price. Thus, the assump- tion of equal paddy price increased their share of total Paddy income. Even if this 5 percent difference is attri- buted to error in measurement and these very large farmers actually received the average price for paddy, the change 267 TABLE 7.2 PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION OF TCEAL VALUE INJITEIHKIdPADDY PRODUCTION USING RECORDED PADDY PRICE AND EQUAL PADDY PRICE FOR SAMPLE FARM CETEPUXXES IN SURVEY VIIIAGES: SHARES OF ORDINAL GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1965—66 AND 1970-71 Households 1965—66 1970—71 Raxmded Eqrfl. Itcofififi Paddy Price lPaddy Pricea Paddy Price Paddy Priceb Pu bent TOP 5 percent 55.5 58.4 58.0 54.2 pr 10 percent 73.0 74.3 74.5 71.3 TOP 20 percent 85.7 86.1 86.1 84.0 Second 20 percent 8.5 8.3 8.3 9.5 Third 20 percent 4.4 4.2 3.7 4.2 Fburth 20 percent 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 Fifth 20 percent —0.5 -0.5 0.1 0.2 Gini Ratio .809 .815 .811 .791 aA paddy price Of RS 12.21 per kalam.or Rs 19.47 per hundred weight is assumed for all farmers in 1965-66. pA paddy price of Rs 14.35 per kalam or Rs 22.89 per hundredweight is assumed for all farmers in 1970-71. in distribution Of income would have been toward more equality in 1970—71 under either assumption about paddy prices in 1965—66. As would be expected, the assumption of an equal paddy price in 1970-71 results in a decrease in the share of paddy income being received by the top ordinal groups with all other ordinal groups increasing their share of total value paddy income. 268 Estimation of Efficiency of Resource Use Specification of Functional Form The Objective in fitting the Cobb-Douglas production function to the cross-section data is to Obtain estimates of the marginal contribution of inputs used in paddy production by farmers separated according to size. These estimates make it possible to evaluate whether or not one or another group of farmers are using too much or tOO little of an input; As was shown in Chapter IV, the small farmers and tenants invested about two—thirds as much in purchased inputs, which was mostly fertilizer, as the larger farmers. Thus, the hypothesis is that the smaller farmer and tenants have higher marginal products for an input such as fertilizer than the larger farmers. The function used in the analysis has the general form: blk bZk bik which is converted to linear logarithmic form and fitted by ordinary least squares. In the function, ij = output Of farm j for paddy crop k Ak = some constant for paddy crop k Xijk = amount of input i used by farm j on paddy crop k bik = the elasticity of production of input i on paddy crop k Ujk = random error for farm j on paddy crop k The estimates generated from this functional form are 269 subject to a variety of errors which have been discussed elsewhere.57 The major limitations are that some variables may be missing, such as the quality of the soil and differ- ential availability of water supply from irrigation, and some variables are zero for some farmers such as chemical 58 But in spite Of these limitations the results fertilizer. should be useful in explaining the general pattern of resource use. As indicated in the general functional form, separate production functions were estimated for each paddy crop. The reason for separating the paddy crops is because each crop is assumed to be on a separate production function due to the different type of variety used for each crop. For purposes Of this analysis, the farms were divided between small and large farms. The small farm size group includes 119 farms with up to five acres in net paddy area. The large farm group includes the 26 farms with more than five acres of net paddy area. The reason for breaking up the farmers according to these particular size groups is that the differences in expenditures for purchased inputs were the most pronounced 57For a discussion and analysis of problems of using phe Cobb-Douglas functional form, see Massell and Johnson 1968]. 58For a discussion of this problem, one may refer to Johnson and Rauser [1970]. —:——ii' 270 when the farms were divided in this way. In addition, the small size group (0—5 acres) includes 75 Of the 79 farmers with any rented land. Thus, this division incorporates both the factor Of size and tenure. Since not all farms had all paddy crOps, the number of observations for a given crop was reduced from the maximum possible number of farms. Table 7.3 indicates the number of farms in each farm size category for each paddy crop in 1970-71 and 1965-66. TABLE 7.3 NUMBER OF SAMPLE FARM OPERATORS IN SURVEY VILLAGES GROWING EACH PADDY CROP, BY FARM SIZE GROUP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Paddy Crop 1965—66 __ 1970—71 4____ Small Large Small I Large Kuruvai 106 24 111 24 Samba 21 14 18 13 Thaladi 106 24 111 24 Production Variables Six production variables were considered in this study: output (the dependent variable), land, labor, seed, chemical fertilizer and manure (the inputs). An explanation of the measures used for these inputs is as follows: The dependent variable, output, is measured in terms 271 Of pounds of paddy harvested. Conversions were made from.the village unit of measurement, the kalam, to pounds in the income accounting routine on the computer. One kalam equals 62.7 pounds. Land (X1) Land was measured in terms of acres planted to each paddy crop in each year. Because Of the scarcity of land, it is locally measured in cents and mas, which are .01 and 33 acres, respectively. Although land in each village was completely serviced by canal irrigation, there was some question as to the adequacy or timeliness of the water supply for some farmers because of the field to field system or irrigation used in the area. Farmers at the ”bottom end" Of the system must therefore rely on the supply of water released by farmers at the “upper end". In spite of continued general questions and a specific question on the survey schedule about the possible inadequacy of this system, all farmers maintained that there were only minor problems, if any, with the supply of water to their fields. Labor Utilization (x2) Labor utilization was measured in terms of total labor days as the sum Of the labor days used in the various Operations in producing paddy. While the 272 average labor day in the area is generally interpreted to mean about eight hours of work, no attempt was made to confirm this. But because laborers are paid by the day, this would tend to support the labor day as being a fairly standard measure. Purchased Inputs . (X3) The purchased input variable is composed Of five separate inputs, namely, chemical fertilizer, purchased manure, plant protection, hired bullock plowing and hired tractor plowing. These inputs were aggregated in terms of their cost using the rupee value as the numeraire. The value Of each of these inputs varied as a proportion of the total value Of purchased inputs between the two periods and by paddy crOp as shown in Table 7.4. Generally, the proportional value Of chemical fertilizer increased between the two periods by nearly 50 percent with the other large component Of purchased inputs, hired tractor plowing, decreasing by nearly 50 percent. This resulted from a 265 percent increase in fertilizer expenditure compared to a 28 percent increase in tractor hire expenditure. Although the purchased input variable is a mix- ture of several inputs, there are elements of substi- tution and complementarity between them. The chemical fertilizers and purchased manures are substitutes, both containing varyingquantities Of plant nutrients. 273 TABLE 7.4 TOTAL VALUE OF EACH PURCHASED INPUT AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL VALUE OF ALL PURCHASED INPUTS USED IN PADDY PRODUCTION ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 All Paddy Purchased Input Kuruvai 'ngba"Thaladi"‘ Crgps‘ ---------- Percent----------------- 1965-66 CHemical fertilizers 49.5 35.8 53.3 48.0 Purchased manure 9.6 1.3 0.0 4.2 Plant protection 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.0 Hired bullock plowing 7.4 2.8 8.3 6.7 Hired tractor plowing 31.6 58.4 36.2 39.1 1970-71 CHemIcal fertilizers 70.5 63.8 72.9 70.6 Purchased manure 3.9 3.9 0.0 2.2 Plant protection 4.7 3.1 5.1 4.7 Hired bullock plowing 2.7 1.1 2.3 2.3 Hired tractor plowing 18.2 *28.1 ‘l9.7‘ 20.2 The plant protection applications are complements to the extent they reduce the risk of disease and insect infestation which would reduce the yield potential. Hired bullock and tractor plowing are complementary to the other inputs in that they are part Of the pro- duction process. In terms of substitutability, the bullock and tractor plowing could more appropriately be combined with labor days. They have been included here because the production function analysis was designed to measure differences in marginal products of purchased inputs between small and large farmers as related to their respective ability to invest in purchased inputs. 274 . Nonpurchased Inputs. (x4) The nonpurchased input variable, measured in rupees, includes the value of own supplied seed and own supplied measure. These two inputs represent the (capital investment to paddy production which is not purchased, being contributed in physical form from the household. Although the manure component of the nonpurchased input variable could be combined with the purchased input variable as a substitute for purchased manure and fertilizer, it is combined here with own supplied seed to form a nonpurchased variable for reasons explained above. Manure was not used for the Thaladi paddy crop. Thus, nonpurchased inputs represent only seed for this crop. Level of Input Use Contrasts between the two farm size groups in the level of production and input use are shown in Table 7.5 where the geometric means for the two farm size groups have been converted to a per acre basis. (See Table A.12 in the Appendix for the geometric means on a total basis). With the production of paddy per acre consistently higher, the levels of purchased inputs per acre are also higher for large farms on all paddy crops in both years with the differences being more pronounced in 1970-71 than 1965-66. Except for purchased inputs on large farms for Samba paddy, 275 TABLE 7.5 GEO’IE’I‘RICNEANOFPKDUCI‘IQ‘IABD INPUTS CCNVEREFDTOAPERACRE BASISFORSAMPIEFARNS INSUKIEYVILIMESBYPADDYCKJP, BYFARVI SIZE GmUP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71 Paddy Crop and Purchased Nonpurchased Farm Size Production Land Labor 'Ipputs Inputs lbs. Acres Days Rupees Ripees 1965—66 Kuruvai Small farms 2,500 1.00 63.4 26.77 40.70 large fams 2,932 l 00 51.7 34.50 40.89 Sanba _. Small farms 2,228 1.00 51.8 8.66 29.89 Large farms 2,540 1.00 47.7 50.50 20.95 Thaladi Snall farms 1,907 1.00 56.5 18.61 18.11 large farms 2,091 1.00 46.4 25.59 14.81 1970—71 Kuruvai Small fame 3,005 1.00 65.9 80.63 43.56 Large farms 3,625 1.00 54.2 128.62 41.63 Samba Small farms 2,397 1.00 52.1 37.89 25.16 Large farms 2,816 l 00 48 7 72.15 18.17 Thaladi Small farms 2,038 1.00 57.9 66.18 19.57 Large fanns 2,494 1.00 48.2 109.72 18.26 276 the value of purchased inputs used per acre was at least three times higher on both farm size groups in 1970-71 compared to 1965-66. While the number of labor days increased somewhat between the two periods for both farm size groups, the number of labor days on small farms was consistently higher than on large farms for all paddy crops. This is consistent with results found in the previous chapter on employment where a negative relationship was found between farm size and number of labor days per acre. The value of nonpurchased inputs per acre did not vary too much between years or between farm size groups. The general tendency was for small farms having somewhat higher value per acre of nonpurchased inputs. This was due to a higher rate of seed use for small farmers and a slightly higher application of manure on the Kuruvai and Samba paddy crops. Marginal Products The estimated marginal physical products (MPP) and marginal value products (MVP) for each input by farm size are shown in Tables 7.6 and 7.7, respectively. The MPP for each input was calculated as the product of the input's elasticity of production and its average product at the geometric means of output and input for each farm size group, i.e.: 277 TABLE 7.6 MARGINAL PHYSICAL PRODUCTS FOR INPUTS USED IN PADDY PRODUCTION ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP, BY FARM SIZE GROUP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Paddy Crop and Farm Size Land Labor Purchased Nonpurchased ' ' ' ‘ ‘ I ' - Inputs ' ' ' Inputs 1965-66 Kuruvai Small farms 2,700* -3.23 0.84 1.04 Large farms 3,167* -4.65 0.77 1.22 Samba Small farms 1,994* 3.40 3.86 5.59 Large farms 2,273* 4.21 0.75 9.09 Thaladi Small farms 2,053* —2.87 —0.10 0.42 Large farms 2,252* -3.83 -0.08 0.56 1970—71 Kuruvai Small farms 3,392* -7.12 0.93 2.55 Large farms 4,092* —lO.44 0.70 3.22 Samba Small farms 1,601* 11.72 7.46* —2.48 Large farms 1,881* 14.73 4.61* -4.03 Thaladi Small farms 626* 11.20* 1.57 44.35* Large farms 766* 16.46* 1.16 58.18* *Significant at less than the 5 percent level. 278 TABLE 7.7 MARGINAL VALUE PRODUCTSa FOR INPUTS USED IN PADDY PRODUCTION ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP, BY FARM SIZE GROUP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Paddy Crop and Land Labor Purchased Nonpurchased Farm Size Inputs IpputS' ------------------ Rupees------------------ 1965—66 ’ Kuruvai Small farms 524* -0.63 0.16 0.20 Large farms 623* -0.92 0.15 0.24 Samba Small farms 387* 0.66 0.75 1.09 Large farms 447* 0.83 0.15 1.79 Thaladi Small farms 399* -0.56 -0.02 0.08 Large farms 443* -0.75 -0.02 0.11 1970-71 m Small farms 767* -l.6l 0.21 0.58 Large farms 981* -2.50 0.17 0.77 Samba Small farms 362* 2.65 1.69* -0.56 Large farms 451* 3.53 1.11* -0.97 Thaladi Small farms 142* 2.53* 0.36 10.03* Large farms 184* 3.95* 0.28 13.96* *Significant at less than the 5 percent level. aThe prices used to calculate MVP's from the MPP's were the average prices received by the small and large farmers, respectively as follows: Small farmers Large farmers 1965-66 1970-71 Rupees per Pound .1943 .2262 .1968 .2399 279 b-, (C ) MPPxik=M' 1:1, 2,3,4 Gx ik bik = the elasticity of production of factor Xi in the production of paddy crop k. Gyk = geometric mean of output for paddy crop k. GX = geometric mean of input Xi for paddy crop k. ik The estimated elasticities of production along with their standard errors and levels of significance can be found in Table A.13 in the Appendix. The results of this analysis would tend to support the hypothesis that the marginal products of purchased inputs were higher for small farmers than for large farmers. Using the estimated production elasticities along with the respective geometric means for production and value of purchased inputs for small and large farms, the marginal products of purchased inputs were higher for small farmers than for large farmers for all paddy crops in both years. But the calculated marginal products were significantly different from zero for only the Samba paddy crop for 1970-71. In addition, the MVP for purchased inputs was greater than one rupee, the marginal factor cost, only for the Samba crop in 1970-71. The production elasticities for labor were not signi— ficant except for the Thaladi paddy crop in 1970—71. In this Case, the calculated marginal value product for labor on large farms at 3.95 rupees was above the average factor cost 280 of labor at 3.22 rupees per day. At the same time the mar- ginal value product of labor on small farms at 2.53 rupees was below the marginal factor cost. For all other crops in both years, the calculated marginal value products were not significantly different from zero. This would tend to imply that the quantity of labor used in the production of paddy was at uneconomic levels for these paddy crops. With one exception, the production coefficients for non- purchased inputs were not significant either. The exception being for Thaladi paddy in 1970—71 where the production elasti— city for nonpurchased inputs was significant and the calculated marginal products were very high. Juding from the fact that the geometric means for the value of nonpurchased inputs did not vary appreciably from the Thaladi paddy crop the previous period or from other paddy crops, this may have been a statistical fluke. In all cases, land was a very important factor in ex- plaining levels of production. As can be found in Appendix A—l3, the production elasticity of land approached or exceeded the value of one for all paddy crops except Samba and Thaladi paddy in 1970—71 where the production elasticities for land were 0.668 and 0.307, respectively. With the exception of the production elasticities for purchased inputs for Samba paddy in 1970—71 and for labor and nonpurchased inputs in 1970—71 Thaladi paddy, land had the only significant production elasticity. Except for these three instances, the marginal products of inputs other than land were not significantly different from zero. 281 In light of the scarcity of land and the importance of paddy to the population in the survey area, this result may not be too surprising. It could mean that farm operators consider the land area as a fixed input and strive for the highest total product by adding other inputs to the level where the marginal products approach zero. However, the analysis undertaken here suffers from a statistical problem which was not overcome in the process of estimating the elasticity coefficients for the inputs. The independent variables were correlated with each other to a very high degree as shown in Tables A.14 and A.15 in the Appendix. Thus, the model identified suffers from a high degree of multicollinearity which, as Kmenta [1971] states ". . .is harmful in the sense that the estimate of the regression coefficients are highly imprecise." The comple— mentarity of these inputs tends to obscure their separate contributions to output. Over-estimation of one production elasticity tends to underestimate one or more of the other production elasticities. Thus, although land is undoubtedly an important input for paddy production in the survey villages, the possible over-estimation of its production elasticity may have under- estimated the production elasticities for the other inputs, notably purchased inputs. The determination of efficiency of resource use by farmers divided by farm size would have to be considered inconclusive in the present analysis with 282 the data available. Although aggregation of variables is suggested when high degrees of complementarity exist, it would appear one would have to aggregate nearly all vari- ables in order to eliminate the complementarity. In the process one would not be able to achieve the original purpose of the analysis.59 The problem of multicollinearity isrmn: uncommon when estimating Cobb-Douglas production functions from micro survey data of this type. A similar problem was found when micro data was used to estimate production elasticities for wheat production in Pakistan [Rochin, 1971]. Part of the problem emanates from the fact that the adoption of high yielding varieties tends to be combined with increases in fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs complementary to the The adjustment to higher levels of use of Thus, new varieties. these complementary inputs appears to be very rapid. there is generally not enough variation in their use to permit accurate estimation of the production elasticites. The estimated production elasticities are not only insigni- ficantly different from zero, they are also not significantly different from a broad range of values. It would appear that crossésectional survey data of the type used for this analysis is not conducive to estimations of accurate production elasticities from a Cobb-Douglas type production function analysis. Better results could probably be attained by carefully selecting §§ . Another model u31ng land, labor, seed, chemical fertilizers, and manure as the independent variables was tried with no better results. 283 data that represents greater variation in input use. Such a selection would be similar to setting up an experiment which incorporates different treatments to show the effects of varying quantities of each input. The problem of identification also exists. It is very possible that the quality of land might vary between farms making the effects of inputs such as fertilizer less significant in explaining production. In the case of Thanjavur District, these quality differences may be related to the availability and timeliness of water supply. In a field to field canal irrigation system, as it presently exists in Thanjavur, farmers at the head of the canal (even at the village level) receive water much sooner than farmers at the end. Although none of the farmers in the survey villages indicated problems in getting enough water, on the average, it was generally agreed that higher yields were achieved with earlier planting. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objectives and Methodology The conclusions related to the specific objectives of this village study are set out below. The objectives were: 1. To measure the effect of increases in rice pro- duction on employment. 2. To measure the effect of increases in rice pro- duction on the distribution of income for the agricultural population. 3. To identify major factors influencing changes in income distribution from rice production among farm operators. Data for this micro study were derived from detailed surveys taken in 1971 of farm Operator and landless labor households in two villages in Thanjavur District. Infor- mation was collected for the period before (1965-66) and after (1970-71), the introduction of higher yielding rice varieties to measure the employment and income effects of increased production. Although local conditions vary between different areas of the District, the general results of this study — i 285 can be used with some justification to infer the income and employment effects of changes in paddy production for the District as a whole with appropriate adjustments. In terms of distribution of farm operators according to farm size, the survey villages were believed to be fairly representative of Thanjavur District. The proportion of farmers within given farm size categories in the survey villages compared quite closely with other surveys and the 1961 Census. In line with the purposeful selection of the two survey villages, significant increases in total paddy production were found to have occurred between 1965-66 and 1970—71. The increase in paddy production in the survey villages also approximated the average increase in paddy production for all of Thanjavur District. Total paddy production increased 22 percent in the survey villages and an estimated 24 percent for the District after adjustment because of a less than average year in 1965—66 for the District as a whole. The changes in paddy production increased the yield of all paddy crops for all farm operator groups. Kuruvai paddy which had the benefit of higher yielding varieties had a 24 percent increase in yield per acre while Thaladi yields increased 18 percent and Samba yields increased 6 percent. Generally, the production figures in the survey villages were considered normal for both years. While the total increase in paddy production for the survey villages compared quite closely with the increase 286 for the District, the sources of change varied from each other. Yields for all paddy crops combined increased 19 percent in the survey villages compared to 10 percent in official District estimates. But the gross area under ‘paddy was estimated to have increased 11 percent in the District compared to 3 percent for the survey villages. By means of cross-tabulation by tenure, farm size, and in some cases caste, the effects for different groups were compared. Gini ratios were calculated to measure the level and change in distribution of income from paddy pro- duction among farm operators and total income among all agricultural households. Regression analysis was used first to demonstrate the significance of variation in paddy price according to the quantity sold, and secondly, to determine the importance of socio-economic variables in influencing the level of income from paddy production for farm operators. In addition, an attempt was made to detenmine differences in resource allocation between small and large farms by using a Cobb-Douglas production function. Major Results Effects of Increases in Rice Production on Employment The analysis of the effects of increased production of paddy on employment was approached two ways. First, a measurement was made of the changes in the total quantity of labor used as paddy production increased. Secondly, 287 changes in employment on farm operator and landless labor households from increased paddy production was measured along with changes in employment from other sources. Chan es in the Totalguantity of Labor Employed in Paddy Production The total change in the quantity of labor used in paddy production increased 6.9 percent in the survey villages. This change was due to an increase in double-cropped paddy area of 2.4 percent along with a 0.1 percent decrease in net area and a 4.4 percent increase in labor per acre. Thus, the most important change in employment in paddy production resulted from the increases in paddy employment per acre. For Thanjavur District as a whole, total paddy area increased 11.3 percent between 1965-66 and 1970-71. After a strong program in 1967-68 focused on converting the single size cr0p to double-cropping of rice the total area under the different paddy crOps appears to have stabilized in the District. With this background, the following conclusions about employment in paddy production appear warranted: 1. The 6.9 percent increase in paddy employment measured in this study probably underestimates the increase in paddy employment for the District as a whole. If a constant labor utilization per acre is assumed for the increased paddy area, labor employed in paddy production would have increased by 11.3 percent. And if employment 288 per acre increased as it did in the survey villages, the total increase in paddy employment for the District may have been as much as 15.7 percent. This is more than double the measured change in the survey villages. 2. The potential for increases in paddy employment because of increases in double cropping has probably dimin- ished for the time being. As the total area of the different paddy crops appears to have stabilized in the past two years, major increases in paddy employment in the District would therefore appear to depend on increases in per acre labor utilization as opposed to a combination of area expansion and more intensive use of labor. 3. The number of labor days employed per acre in paddy production was found to be related to farm size. The smallest farms had 37 percent more labor days per acre than the largest farms in 1970—71, an increase from 30 percent more in 1965-66. This result is consistent with the paddy labor demand study of Thanjavur District by Staub [1971] who found a significant negative relationship between farm size and labor days per acre of paddy production. Important issues concerning the relationship between tractor plowing and employment in paddy production were also demonstrated. Increased use of tractor plowing apparently caused a decreased use of bullock plowing and its associated labor. But because some bullock plowing and leveling was also employed on areas plowed by tractors, tractor plowing 289 did not completely replace the use of bullocks on fields which are tractor plowed. However, if the area plowed by tractors in 1971 could have been plowed by bullocks, the total increase in paddy labor employment would have been 10.3 percent instead of the measured 6.9 percent. Thus, the increased use of tractors for the plowing operation may have reduced the increase in paddy employment by about one third in the survey villages if there were no constraints on the availability of the necessary bullocks. However, it is not clear from this study whether the improvement in time- liness in completing the plowing operation by using tractors was a significant factor in the 11.3 percent increase in gross paddy area in the District. Due to the possibility of these interactions, the net effect on paddy employment of increased tractor plowing could not be estimated. Chan es in Agricultural Household Employment From §_g Sources Using the agricultural household as the unit of analysis, the effect of changes in paddy employment was measured along with changes in employment from other sources. Although there was some variation by farm size and tenure in the relative changes in labor days per household in paddy employment, most agricultural households had more employment in paddy production after the introduction of the higher yielding varieties. But therewas considerable variation between landless laborer households and different groups of farm Operator households in the importance of these changes. 290 The average landless laborer household had 84 and 82 percent of their total employment from paddy labor for 1965-66 and 1970-71, reSpectively. Thus, these households rely very heavily on employment and income from labor in paddy production. Changes in the demand for labor for paddy production therefore have a very strong effect on this group of agricultural households, a group which represents a majority (61 percent) of the agricultural households in the villages. Even though paddy labor as a proportion of total employment declined slightly for the average landless laborer household, increases in paddy labor employment contributed about two-thirds of the total increase in employment for the average landless laborer household. Within the farm Operator group of agricultural house- holds, the small farm Operators (0-5 acres) had nearly three-fourths of their employment from paddy labor, while the average large farm operator household (5.01+ acres) had only about one-half of total employment from paddy labor. At the extreme, the very large farm operators were not involved in the physical labor requirements of paddy production at all. However, since the employment in terms of the managerial and supervisory functions for farm operators could not be measured with the data available, it is not known to what degree these measures would be altered if these functions could have been included. While farm operators in general and large farm 291 operators in particular had a high proportion of their total household employment from the nonagricultural sources, the nonagricultural employment in which the farm operators were involved was related to institutions within the village setting. For landless labor households, on the other hand, most of the nonagricultural employment was in large towns. Even though relatively unimportant in terms of total employ- ment, the tendency was in the direction of more nonagricultural employment for landless laborers which appeared to be related to proximity to a large town. This implies that as development takes place, the personnel required to fill the positions in new institutions at the local level (such as schools, cooperatives, and local governing bodies) are filled by the peOple who already have the socio-economic power within the village--in this case, the larger farm Operators. The people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, landless laborers, must look elsewhere to gain nonagricultural employment. Being near a large town appears to facilitate this effort. Effects of Increases in Rice Production on the Distribution of Income Among the Agricultural Population Basic to the question of distribution of income is 60 how property rights are shared among a given population. 60Property rights is used here to define a set of formal and informal rules which specify how resources may be used. 292 If everyone had the same set of property rights and used all resources at the same level, one could expect an equal distribution of income, ceteruS'paribus. There were no major shifts in property rights in the period studied. For the most important property right in determining levels of income, namely, ownership or control of land, there was a high concentration in the hands of a few households: and this did not change very much between the two periods. While the Gini ratios for paddy land ownership and operated paddy land area both moved slightly towards more equality, there was essentially no change between the two periods. Most of the land was controlled by very large Brahmin owner-Operators who in addition to their own land controlled additional paddy land for friends and relatives no longer living in the village. This set of farm Operators represen- ting 12 percent of all farm operators or 5 percent of all agricultural households controlled 62 percent of the land reported in the two survey villages in both years. Although there was some evidence of upward mobility of farm operators toward a better socio-economic position, only 10 out of the 145 farm operators moved between the economic classifications of the study between the two periods. The terms of tenure between landlord and tenants remained constant between the two periods. In both years the tenant paid the same fixed quantity of paddy to the 293 landlord. Although the quantity of paddy paid for the use of the land remained the same, the average proportion of the total harvest for all crops declined from 47 percent to 40 percent as a result of increases in yields. Thus, the increases in yields from the changes in paddy production were retained by the tenants. In addition to a greater number of hired labor days in paddy production, the wage rates received by laborers also increased. At current prices, the daily wage rate increased 39 percent when all types and genders of laborers are combined. Allowing for inflation, the daily wage rate in real terms increased 7 percent over the five years. With the above background, the following conclusions emerge about the income from paddy production and the effects of these changes on the distribution of income among the agricultural households in the survey villages. 1. Most farm Operators had increased real income from paddy production. The only general exception were the owner-tenants who,as a group,experienced a 3 percent decline in real income from paddy production. The owner-operators and tenants increased their real income from paddy by 15 and 17 percent, respectively. By farm size the largest farm Operators had the largest increase with 20 percent, followed by the very small farm operators with a 9 percent increase in real income from paddy. 294 The variation in changes in returns from paddy produc- tion were due mostly to the extent of changes in yield and changes in price received for paddy. In addition to having larger yield increases as described above, the very large farm Operators also had much higher increases in the price they received for paddy. The higher price received by very large farmers in 1970-71 was due to a significant positive relationship between the price of paddy and the quantity of paddy sold in addition to a significantly higher price due to storage for later sale. The higher price with larger sales was apparently related to better marketing information which allowed the very large farmers with large sales to sell their paddy to merchants from outside the area who could offer a higher price. 2. The distribution of income from paddy production among farm Operators was highly skewed, both before and after the introduction of the new paddy varieties. Gini ratios of 0.811 and 0.809 for 1970-71 and 1965-66, reapectively, indicate a highly skewed and stable distribution of paddy income among farm operators. However, there were some relative changes in the shares of total paddy income received by ordinal groups which were not reflected by the Gini ratios. In relative terms, the farm Operators at the top and bottom both increased their share of total paddy incomes while the middle income groups had a decrease in their share of total paddy income. 295 3. Even though total income from all income sources was somewhat more equally distributed among farm operators than paddy income by itself, the direction of change for the distribution was slightly adverse. The Gini ratio for the distribution of income from all sources among farm Operators increased to 0.742 in 1970-71 from 0.732 in 1965-66. Since the changes in income from other sources, with the exception of nonagricultural income, were associated with the changes in paddy production, the total effect of the changes in paddy production appeared to have had the effect of increasing the income disParity among farm operators. This was due mostly to additional income from tractor rental by two large farm operators who purchased two tractors during the five-year period. This change had the effect of shifting income from laborers and small farm Operators who otherwise probably could have received most of the additional income from hiring out their bullock plowing services. But the change in the Gini ratio was marginal and cannot be considered a major shift in distribution of total income among farm operators. 4. The landless laborers gained relatively more total net income than most farm Operator groups. While farm operators as a group increased their total real income by 12 percent, landless laborers increased their total real income by 13 per- cent. By farm size the only farm operator group to have higher relative increases in total real income were the 296 very large farm operators who had an 18 percent increase in total real income. All other farm size groups had less relative increase in total real income than landless laborers. Of particular interest was the information that the landless laborers generally did not perceive any change in income. Apparently, they measure their gains in terms of movement on a socio—economic scale. In spite of relatively higher increases in income between the two periods, the landless laborers still had the lowest level of income among the agricultural population in addition to not Operating any land which is a highly desired goal. 5. The distribution of total income among all agricul- tural households (including both farm operators and landless laborers) moved slightly towards a more equal distribution between the two periods. The Gini ratio for total income among all agricultural households was 0.700 in 1970-71 compared to 0.709 in 1965-66. The basic cause for this slight improvement in distribution of total income was the relatively higher increase in income of the landless laborers who made up most of the bottom 60 percent of the households by income. While the Gini ratio moved slightly towards a more equal distribution of income, the change was marginal and can not be considered a major shift. In total, the effect of the increased production of paddy on most agricultural households was to raise the general level of income for the 297 two survey villages while the measure for the distribution of income remained relatively constant. Both the median and mean income increased 46 percent at current prices and 12 percent in real terms. Major Factors Influencing Changes in Income Distribution From Rice Production Among Farm Operators The determination of important factors causing the very skewed distribution of income from paddy production was approached in three ways. First, the importance of socio— economic variables in explaining the distribution of income was investigated by fitting the variables to a linear regres- sion function. Secondly, the importance of variation in paddy prices received by farmers was tested by assuming a constant price for all farm operators. The Gini ratios of value incomes generated by this assumption were then compared with the Gini ratios of value income from paddy using the recorded paddy prices. Thirdly, a Cobb~Doug1as production function was used to determine differences in resource allocation between small and large farmers by comparing the marginal products of the inputs used in paddy production. The following conclusions are based on the above analysis: 1. The single most important socio—economic variable in determination of income from paddy production was net operated paddy area. Of the three sets of socio-economic variables used in the regression analysis, including physical 298 capital, human capital, and caste, only the net operated paddy area variable was highly significant in both periods (at less than the 0.05 percent level). The age and level of education of the farm operator as surrogate continuous variables for human capital had the expected positive signs in both years. And though not signi— ficant in either period, the computed level of significance was much higher in the period after the introduction of new varieties, 1970-71. Thus, the human capital factor could be inferred to be more important with the introduction of a technological change than under the traditional production. Caste included as zero-one (dummy) variables did not have a significant effect on income from paddy production in either year. This does not necessarily mean, however, that caste is not associated with variation in paddy income. The average Brahmin had more than 15 times as much income from paddy than either the average non-Brahmin or Harijan. But caste, by itself was apparently not the cause for differences in paddy income. Instead, caste implies differences in property rights in the form of ownership and control of land which in turn is the major cause of variations in paddy income. 2. An equal price of paddy for all farmers would have produced a marginal improvement in the distribution of paddy income. Using the recorded paddy sale prices to value total production, the Gini ratios computed for each period indicated 299 the changes in paddy production had almost no effect on the distribution of paddy income among farm operators. Because both the quantity of paddy sold and the time of sale were found to be positively related to the price received for paddy in 1970-71, a test was undertaken by assuming an equal price of paddy for all farmers. The Gini ratios computed from this test of simulated incomes indicated what the distribution of paddy income would have been without variation in paddy prices. The result indicated that the distribution of paddy income among farm operators would have moved towards a more equal distribution of income. While the Gini ratio remained nearly the same with recorded paddy prices, increasing by only .002, the Gini ratio decreased by .024 when equal prices are assumed for all farm operators in both years. This implies that the distribution of income could be improved slightly by assuring equal prices for all farmers. But part of the variation in prices received was due to storage for later sale, which presumably reflects additional cost for this storage. The improvement in distribution of paddy income by eliminating either or both price effects would have to be considered marginal at best and would seem unlikely to merit investment in an institution to guarantee equal prices for paddy to all farm operators. 3. Estimation of the efficiency of resource use was inconclusive in eXplaining variation in income from paddy 300 production. Using a Cobb—Douglas production function, the marginal products of inputs in paddy production were estimated. Included as inputs were land, labor, seed, purchased inputs and nonpurchased inputs. The hypothesis was that the marginal products purchased inputs which was mainly chemical fertilizer would be higher for small farmers than for large farmers. The justification for the hypothesis was that the level of purchased input use on large farms was about twice as high as on small farms in 1970—71 with paddy yields considerably higher for large farmers. The inferred reason for low use of chemical fertilizers by small farmers was the lack of financial resources available to invest in purchased inputs. Data had shown that small farmers had to borrow as much as 90 percent of the funds necessary for the investment in purchased inputs in 1970—71. The results of this analysis tended to support the hypothesis that the marginal products of purchased inputs were higher for small farmers than for large farmers for all paddy crops in both years. However, statistical signi— ficance for this relationship was found for only the Samba and Thaladi crops in 1970-71. All Of the other estimated production elasticities used in deriving the marginal products for purchased inputs were not statistically significant. In general, land area was the dominating variable, being highly significant for all paddy crops in both periods for both farm size groups. Most other marginal products of —: 7 301 inputs including labor were not significantly different from zero. This could imply that because land area is the most serious constraint on total production, other inputs are applied to get the most production from a given area of land. Technical problems were evident in this analysis as the estimating function suffered from a high degree of multi— collinearity among the independent variables. Thus, the estimated regression coefficients are highly imprecise. Therefore, the results of this part of the analysis were inconclusive and require further investigation. As a concluding comment on the distribution of income among agricultural households in the survey villages, a note of warning should be made. While the Gini ratios for dis- tribution of income did not change more than marginally, the levels of the Gini ratios indicate a highly skewed dis- tribution of income. with further political awareness and growing belief that economic benefits should be shared more equally, the body politic may be wise to consider various ways of promoting a better distribution of income before the very large segment of low income earners embark on ad 1 Egg programs of their own which could be very damaging to the general growth and development of the economy. Various agitations have previously taken place in the District, and it may only be a question of time before these become better organized and more effective in their quest for a larger 302 share of economic benefits in a society which has strongly stated egalitarian goals. Policy Implications Employment With a high proportion of the total population rural,61 increases in employment in the agricultural sector are criti- cal in terms of providing employment for a growing popula- tion. Although nearly all farm Operators and landless laborers expressed the desire for their children to become "educated" and employed outside of agriculture, the possibil- ity of more than a small percentage of the added population achieving this goal in the next generation is unlikely at best. Therefore, if the new entrants to the labor market from the agricultural population are to be employed, most of the additional employment will have to be generated in the agricultural sector at least for the near future. From this study, two factors appear to be important with respect to potential increases in employment in paddy production, namely, size of farm and the effects of tractor mechanization. Unless ways are found to increase the area double- crOpped, further increases in employment in paddy produc- tion will necessarily have to come from increases in the number of labor days per acre. As was shown in this study 61About>80 percent of the total population in Thanjavur District was classed as rural in the 1971 Census of India. 303 and others (see Staub [1971]), the number of labor days employed per acre in paddy production was found to be nega- tively related to farm size. The smallest farms had about one-third more labor days per acre than the largest farms. Reducing the size of farms would appear to have the effect of increasing the quantity of labor used in paddy production. Even though tractor plowing apparently has not displaced bullock plowing completely, the total employment in paddy production is reduced by increased use of tractors. At the margin, this reduction becomes very important. As was seen in this study, the increase in labor days in paddy production was probably reduced by about one-third because of increased use of tractors for plowing. However, improved timeliness by using tractors for plowing may have been a major factor in the increase of double-cropping which was the main source of increased paddy employment for the District as a whole. Thus, the net effect of increased tractor plowing on employment could not be determined from the data used for this study. Therefore, further investigation should be made before policy decisions are made about the use of tractors in paddy production. Income Distribution India, as well as most other countries, has embodied egalitarian goals in their constitution. That this study has shown a skewed distribution of income in a traditional agricultural area is not surprising. No country of any type 304 of economic system has ever been known to have a perfectly equal distribution of income. Although a perfectly equal distribution may not be attainable, nor even desirable, there is reason to believe the large segment of low income earners are no longer as willing, as in the past, to allow a relatively few people to gain most of the of the economic benefits from society. As shown in this study, most of the groups of people in the agricultural population received relative gains in income from the increase in paddy production. But while the relative distribution of income remained nearly the same, the absolute differences between the incomes for the lowest and highest income earners grew substantially. Thus, from the standpoint of more closely attaining the espoused egalitarian goals of the Indian constitution and to maintain political stability in a developing economy, it may be in the best interest of the country to provide a more equal distribution of the economic benefits of society. If policy-makers are interested in providing a more equal distribution of income from paddy production, the most important lever in this effort would appear to be some type of land reform. While marginal improvements could be made by improvements in the marketing structure by guaranteeing a certain price of paddy for all farmers, control of land is by far the most important variable in determining the amount of income from paddy production. 305 Presently, there is a 15 acre limit on the quantity of land owned by an individual in Tamil Nadu State. By spreading land ownership among several members of the household, the household as a unit can still retain relatively large quanti— ties of land. This implies that further reductions in the quantity of land owned by an individual or household would be indicated in order to achieve a more equal distribution of income from paddy production. The implementation of a progressive agricultural income or land tax, if administratively feasible, could also be used to reduce the skewness of the distribution of income. The present level of taxation of land owned in excess of 7.5 acres in Tamil Nadu had almost no effect on the distribution of income in the survey villages. Recommendations In a study of this SCOpe, it was not possible to pursue in depth every aspect of factors related to the changes in .income distribution and employment within the confines of a thesis. The following areas are believed to deserve further study: 1. Effect Of tractor mechanization on paddy employment. As was shown in this study, increased use of tractors for the plowing-puddling Operation reduced the number of labor days used for that Operation in the two survey villages. However, improved timeliness by using tractors may have been a major factor in the increase of double-cropping which was 306 the main source of increased paddy employment for the District. Since the net effect of increased tractor plowing on employ- ment could not be determined from data used for this study, further investigation would have to be made before the increased use of tractors could be judged as having a positive or negative effect on total paddy employment. 2. Further identification of production functions. As a tool in determining equity in income distribution, production function analysis should be very applicable. In other words, if the claimants of the total product are all receiving their marginal value products, the distribution of income can be said to be Pareto-optimal within a given set of property rights. The production function analysis undertaken in this study was not very fruitful in this regard. With the introduction of a new technology, inputs tend to be used as a package such that there is a high degree of multi- collinearity among the independent variables. The result is that the marginal products of the separate inputs cannot be estimated with much accuracy. Whether or not further aggre- gation or inclusion of other inputs such as the timeliness or quantity of water applied would improve the estimates should be investigated. 3. Effect of land reforms on total production and distribution of income. As indicated in this study, the larger farms had higher yields and income. Thus, if a land reform were instituted, a reduction in total production would be implied while having 307 the effect of reducing the skewness of distribution of income. These trade-offs between a more equal distribution of income and reduction in total production would have to be weighted against what a desirable distribution of income would be and the needed food supply for the area. In other words, how much reduction in production results from a given change in the distribution of land ownership and control. 4. Investigation of marketing systems. This study pointed out two sources of variation in prices of paddy received by farmers in 1970-71, namely, quantity sold and time of sale. While the price of paddy stored for later sale should in theory reflect cost of storage, information concerning time of storage and cost of storage was not available to determine if farmers who stored paddy for later sale were receiving appropriately higher prices for this service. And while the positive relation- ship between price of paddy and quantity sold was apparently related to better access to different product markets, infor- mation was not available to clearly identify this relationship. In addition, no analysis was made of variation in prices in the factor markets. Although variation in prices for inputs was not found by inepection of the data, prices for inputs may have also varied with the volume of purchases to some extent. 5. Effect of supply of credit on income distribution. As was shown in this study, smaller farmers (a) used a much lower level of purchased inputs than large farmers, 308 (b) used credit for a much higher proportion of purchased inputs, and (c) paid a higher price for this credit than large farmers. Just what effect these factors had on the quantity of inputs used or the effect on income from paddy production was not determined explicitly. A major question is to what extent improved credit conditions would result in higher yields on the smaller farms. 6. Simulation of effects of various policy alternatives. By using the full set of data or derivation of repre- sentative farms, the effects of various policy alternatives could be tested. In this study, the effect of equal prices of paddy on income distribution was shown. In the same way, the effects of an increase or decrease in the price of paddy on the distribution of income could also be calculated. The effects of other policy alternatives such as a change in land ownership, input subsidization, equal interest rates among all farmers, various forms of taxation, and changes in labor wage rates could also be determined. 7. Investigation of relationships between measures for distribution of income and economic growth. At present, very little, if any, interpretation can be given to general measures of income distribution such as the Gini ratio. For instance, it cannot be said that a Gini ratio of income distribution at one level is more likely to produce more total product or economic growth than a Gini ratio of another level. 309 In order to give general measures of distribution more meaning, a study to determine the association between measures of distribution and the rate of economic growth of an economy would be very useful. If there is a relationship, it would give policy-makers a better idea of what level of distribution would best serve the general goals of society. Since the skewness of distribution of income may also be related to political stability, a separate study of this relationship would also be useful. In other words, within a given socio-economic system is there a level of skewness in distribution of income beyond which some type of revolt against the government could be anticipated. The social costs of various revolutionary movements normally run counter to long-run development goals. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Dale W. and Norman Rask, "Economics of Cost—Share Leases in Less Developed Countries", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, November 1968, pp. 935—942. Agricultural College and Research Institute, "An Economic Appraisal of the Owner-Operated and Tenant—Operated Farms in Thanjavur District (l965-68YZ Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Section, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Benson, Richard A., "Gini Ratios: Some Considerations Affecting Their Interpretation." Beteille, Andre, Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of StratificatiOn in a Tanjore Village, Bombay, Oxford University Press, University of’CalifOrnia Press, 1966. Bronfenbrenner, Martin, Income Distribution Theory, Aldine- Atherton, Inc. 1971: Brown, Lester R., Seeds of Change, Praeger, 1970. Census of India, Thanjavur District Census Handbook, Vol. IX, Madras, Part X-V, Vol. 1, 1965. Census of India 1971, Primary Census Abstract (Provisional) For Thanjavur District, Tamil Nadu, 1971, Series 1, Paper 1 of 1971 Supplement. Einstein, Albert, from an address to the student body, Cali- fornia Institute of Technology, "Great WOrds from Great Lives", Reader's Digest Association, Inc., 1970. Epstein, T. Scarlett, Economic Development and Social Change in south India, Manchester University Press, 1962. Gotsch, Carl H., "Technical Change and Distribution of Income Benefits in Rural Areas", Land Tenure Center Newsletter, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, Number 35, December-March, 1971-72, pp. ll-l7. 311 . ”Relationship Between Technology, Prices, and Income Distribution in Pakistan Agriculture: Some Observations on the Green Revolution," Unpublished paper given at a workshop on rural Development in Pakistan, Michigan State University, 1971, (To be included in a forthcoming book, Rural Development in Bangladesh and Pakistan - Past Achievement and Present Challepges, edited by RoBerE 5. Stévens, HamzdeIdVI" and Peter J. Bertocci). Government of India, Third Five-Year Plan, Planning Commission, 196I. Government of Tamil Nadu, The Madras Cultivatin Tenants (Payment of Fair RenEYAct,—l956'(As Modified up to Idth August 1969), Director of Stationery and Printing, Madras, 1971. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Handbook of Agriculture, 1969. Intensive Agricultural District Programme, Farm Management Stud of 114 Farm, 1962-63, Package Press, Thanjavur, June I965. "Anneures to the Report on Cost of Cultivation OfPaddy on State Seed Farms", Research Studies, Thanjavur District, 1966. . "Progress of I.A.D.P., Thanjavur 1960-67", Package Press, Thanjavur, 1968. Iyengar, W.S., ”On Intertemporal and Interregional Variations in Expenditure Inequality in India”, Seminar on Employment and Income Distribution, USAID, New Delhi, March 1970. Johnson, S.R. and Gordon C. Raussen, "Effects of Misspecifi- cations of Log Linear Functions When Values are Zero or Negative", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 53, No.1, February 1970, pp. 120-124. Kmenta, Jan, Elements of Econometrics, The MacMillan Company, Krishna, Raj, "Priorities for Research in Agricultural Economics", Research Methodology and Priorities, No.10, Agricultural DeveIOpment Council, October, 1971. Massell, Benton F. and R.W.M. Johnson, Economics of Small- holder Farmin‘ in‘RhodesiaaATCross-Section Khalysid in Two Areas, Food ResearchThatitute,#SEdfifdfd_UdIVE?§IE , I968, Chapter 7, "Problems of Statistical Estimation”, pp. 38-44. f "‘— Wfi— 7 W ,,_ 312 Mayla, M. Meenakshi and P.P. Madappa, "Paddy (ADT-27) in Madras State", Planning and Implementation in Agriculture, Studies on High‘Yielding;Varieties Programme, Volume I, Indian Institute Of Management, Almedabad, 1967. Mellor, John W., "The Interrelationship Between Rapid Agricultural DevelOPment and Distribution of Income", Mimeo, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, August 1969, pp.7. . "Policies for Broadening the Desirable Income Effects of Rapid Growth in Agricultural Production", Hearing Symposium on "Science and Foreign Affairs: The Green Revolution," United States HouSe of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development, Washington, D.C., December 5, 1969. Morgan, James, "The Anatomy of Income Distribution", The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. XLIV, August, 1962. Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian DramaglAn Inquiry Into the Poverty of Nations, VOlume I, Panthea, New York, 1968. Nair, Kusam, Blossoms in the Dust, Praeger, 1966. New York Times, "Madras is Reaping a Bitter Harvest of Rural Terrorism", January 15, 1969, p. 12. . "A Green Revolution Turns Red”, January 9, 1970. Northeast Farm Management Extension Committee, "Budget Procedures for Analyzing Farm Adjustments", Northeast Regional Publication, Revised Edition, 1967. tha, P.D. and V.V. Bhatt, "Patterns of Income Distribution in An Underdeveloped Economy: A Case Study of India", American Economic Review, September 1964, pp. 711—720. Planning Commission, "Report of the Committee on Distribution of Income and Levels of Living: Distribution of Income and Wealth and Concentration of Power", Part I, Government of India, February 1969. Ranadine, K.R., "Patterns of Income Distribution in India, 1953-54 to 1959-60," Bulletin, Oxford University Institute of Economics and Statistics, Volume 30, Number 3, August 1968, pp. 231-261. Rochin, Refugio I. "A Micro-Economic Analysis of Smallholder 313 Response to High-Yielding Varieties of Wheat in West Pakistan," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University. Schluter, Michael G. and Richard W. Longhurst. "Some Aspects of Suitability of High Yielding Rice and Bajra Varieties for the Small Farm, Thanjavur and Mehsona Districts, India," Occasional Paper No. 57, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, October, 1972. Statistical Abstractfigf‘lndia, Cabinet Secretariat, Depaftment Of Statistics, Central Statistical Organi— zation, Government of India, March 31, 1969. Staub, William J., "Agricultural DevelOpment and Farm Employment: An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Employment Of Family, Permanent and Casual Labor in Two DevelOping Districts in India," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1971. Swenson, Clyde G., "1967 Kuruvai Paddy Survey in Thanjavur District," The Ford Foundation, New Delhi, India, December 1967. "Tamil Nadu - An Economic Appraisal, 1972 (Part II - Statistical Tables)", Finance Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras-9. Wharton, Clifton R., Jr., "The Green Revolution: Conucopia or Pandora's Box," Foreign Affairs Council on Foreign Relation, New York, 1969, pp. 464-476. Yang, W. Y., "Methods of Farm Management Investigations for Improving Farm Productivity," (Revised Edition), Food and Agriculture Organization, Agricultural Development Paper, No. 80, 1965. APPENDICES 314 TABLE A.l TOTAL AREA OF SELECTED FOODGRAINS AND TOTAL FOODGRAIN AREA FOR INDIA, 1963-64 TO 1970-7l* Crop J Total Year Paddy Wheat Maize Jowar Bajra Foodgrains Thousand Hectares ——————————————— 1963-64 35,622 13,496 4,584 17,956 10,785 116,253 1964—65 36,364 13,460 4,618 17,938 11,726 117,533 1965-66 35,273 12,656 4,765 17,504 11,504 113,174 1966-67 35,251 12,838 5,074 18,054 12,240 115,302 1967-68 36,437 14,998 5,583 18,422 12,808 121,421 1968-69 36,966 15,958 5,716 18,731 12,052 120,250 1969-70 37,680 16,626 5,862 18,605 12,493 123,570 1970-71 37,592 18,240 5,852 17,374 12,913 124,316 *Source: "Agricultural Situation in India," Directorate of Economics and Government of Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, India, April 1966—October 1972. 315 TABLE A.2 TOTAL PRODUCTION OF SELECTED FOODGRAINS AND TOTAL FOODGRAINS PRODUCTION FOR INDIA, 1963-64 TO l970-7l* Crop Total Year Paddy, Wheat Maize Jowar Bajra Foodgrains -------------- Thousand Metric Tons----—--------- 1963-64 36,889 9,861 4,553 9,134 3,734 80,243 1964-65 39,034 12,290 4,685 9,749 4,454 88,996 1965-66 30,655 10,424 4,760 7,527 3,655 72,030 1966-67 30,438 11,393 4,894 9,224 4,468 74,231 1967—68 37,612 16,540 6,269 10,048 5,185 95,024 1968-69 38,761 18,652 5,701 9,804 3,802 94,013 1969—70 40,430 20,093 5,674 9,721 5,327 99,501 1970-71 42,225 23,832 7,486 8,105 8,029 108,422 *Source: "Agricultural Situation in India," Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, April 1966-Ocotber 1972. 316 TABLE A.3 YIELD PER HECTARE OF SELECTED FOODGRAINS AND AVERAGE YIELD FOR ALL FOODGRAINS FOR INDIA, 1963-64 TO 1970-7l** Crop Total Year Paddyp Wheat Maize Jowar Bajra Foodgrains --------------------- K1lograms-—-—---------------- 1963-64 1,036 731 993 509 346 690 1964-65 1,073 913 1,015 543 380 757 1965-66 869 824 999 430 318 636 1966-67 863 887 965 511 365 644 1967-68 1,032 1,103 1,123 545 405 783 1968-69 1,076 1,169 997 523 315 782 1969-70 1,073 1,209 968 522 426 805 1970-71 1,123 1,307 1,279 467 622 872 **Derived from Tables A.1 and A.2. 317 TABLE A.4 TOTAL AREA UNDER HIGH YIELDING VARIETIES IN INDIA, BY CROP, 1966-67 TO l970-7l* Crop , [ Total Year Paddy Wheat Maize Jowar Bajra Foodgrains ------------- Thousand Hectares . 1966-67 890 540 200 190 60 1,380 1967-68 1,790 2,940 290 600 420 6,040 1968-69 2,600 4,800 400 700 700 9,200 1969-70 4,340 4,910 450 550 1,160 11,410 1970-71 5,590 6,480 460 800 2,050 15,380 , 1971—72a 7,210 7,490 490 910 1,840 17,940 1972-73a 9,000 8,500 500 1,100 3,000 22,100 1973-74b 10,100 7,700 1,200 3,200 2,800 25,000 *Source: Saran, Ram. "High Yielding Varieties Cultivation—— Some Economic Aspects." "Agricultural Situation in India, " Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, August 1972, p. 324. aAnticipated achievement bTarget 318 TABLE A.5 PROPORTION OF TOTAL AREA UNDER HIGH YIELDING VARIETIES IN INDIA, BY CROP, 1966-67 TO l970-7l* Crop Total Year Paddy Wheat Maize Jowar Bajra Foodgrains --------------------- Percent---------------------- 1966-67 2.5 4.2 3.9 1.1 0.5 1.2 1967-68 4.9 19.6 5.2 3.3 3.3 5.0 1968-69 7.0 30.1 7.0 3.7 5.8 7.7 1969-70 11.5 29.5 7.7 3.0 9.3 9.2 1970-71 14.9 35.5 7.9 4.6 15.9 12.4 *Derived from Tables A.1 and A.4. 319 TABLE A.6 PERCENT OF ACREAGE IN DOUBLE-CROPPING AND ADT-27 IN THANJAVUR DISTRICT IN 1966 AND 1967 KURUVAI SEASON, BY SIZE OF FARM Proportions Total or 0-2.00 2.01—5.00 5.01+ Mean 1. Percent of farmers in each category 34.2 39.6 26.1 (2816) 2. Percent double— cropped acres, 1966 47.5 34.9 34.5 39.1 3. Percent double— cropped acres, 1967 62.3 48.7 47.5 53.0 4. Percent increase in , double-cropped acres 31.5 39.5 37.7 35.5 5. Percent ADT—27, 1966* 34.3 38.7 46.4 38.6 6. Percent ADT-27, 1967* 87.3 90.3 89.1 88.9 7. Percent increase in ADT-27 in Kuruvai acreage 154.5 135.3 92.0 130.3 lFrom analysis of "1967 Kuruvai Paddy Survey in Thanjavur District," [Swenson, 1967]. *Percent of Kuruvai Acreage 320 Sun a: 3 m S... S Re; 1.: QR m... 8“ 3. «3 S 32. 3 m «a n 53: «8 SA A H d a HS 84 S 3 S 3 as . S 835 2:; 8mm 4 H 88 S 8.. R 82 an S 5 SA on 6318.82 8” an a H mm .3 a A «Q 3 flaw»? 58 SN; 8... a H Sa H E... a: s: S «3 S mfl «m 32. o N o a 588. 8.. 3a m H 8m 8 I. S 8 «a m A Eng «3 an a A m3 «4 3H 8 m2 3 S 3 ed A 658.82 2 3 R a a A an a. El 335: as an a m an S 2.. m3 8 3 8 m Ga 5 g o H e H 53: 3m 2. H a a H Rm 5 a N on v 2. 3 539a 8.. 8H 2: A «a s. S 2 e A we 3 fistulas a2 3 a. a 3 m a... «a cg June and! .nom .8905 .5 .0393 .m9m .0965 .dom .0305 mom 6an. .mom .0963 38. 83.355 3:52 .323 mug ugg .89 H865 Hum." .ggggagg h.¢ a 321 TABLE A.8 TOTAL PADDY AREA IN THABUAVUR DISTRICT, BY CROP, 1965-66 TO 1970—7l* Year ’ ‘ Percent Change Kuruvai Samba Thaladi Total Fitn11965-66 Atha 1965—66 299,411 949,220 256,384 1,505,015 1966—67 270,613 981,094 300,863 1,552,570 +3.2 1967-68 518,978 628,578 285,622 1,433,178 -4.8 1968—69 500,317 760,683 339,345 1,500’345. +6.3 1969-70 510,020 780,445 388,158 1,678,623 +11.5 1970—71 512,762 782,924 379,207 1,674,893 +ll.3 *Data supplied by I.A.D.P., Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. 322 .somz Heads .Hs>sncssa ..m.o.¢.H an Ooaammsm sumo Bosha OHH woa HHH MHH «Hm.~ omo.m «mm.N mem.~ Henchma NHH mm Had omH Hmm.~ mme.a «mmtm mNm.~ chamoma NHH voa mHH maa «mm.m NOd.H mam- omm.~ owlmoma mm mm em NHH mew.a om~.H hvm.a oum.~ mulbmma mm mm hm am Hmm.a aho.a H¢O.N oem.a helmmma mm mm em «OH mmm.H omo.a bbm.a bm~.~ mmlmmma add mad NHH moa «mm.m mOH.N Nem.N «NM.N mouwoma em ooH cm mm mma.a emm.a ~am.a mma.~ «cinema mm mm mm mod Hmo.~ owm.a Hmo.~ mam.~ mulmoma moa mad HHH mm mm~.~ mm~.~ mmm.~ mHN.N NOIHomH mm Hoa mm mm moo.~ mam.a moo.~ mma.~ Helooma uluuusnnuuuouod Hum awesomlunlunllun Omcaneoo Academe chasm Hm>sucx pecansoo womacswli chasm Hm>susx mom omowwmm MMemanmewmumMGMMWMM use» «anionma OB Holcoma .mOmU Naadm Mm BUHmBmHQ mo>flm Ameoeaafl> me>ncm ecu scum meHHE me usonmv ueuceo unease: ecu me fiHHddaeuflcusuHB o .erCH encased ecu mowed neposuumcoo ems weeaum nessmcoo ca emcmno no xeucfl eSH .muenooea eweancea mcflnsaocfl eudceu use eNHm anew an neHwHOMHUm wemmaafl> we>u5m can ecu ca mucencommeu mm How Helonma mod wwlmmma MOM Dec: Hem eOHud one nemmnoudm meflueuceoo mcfluomeee >e>udm coaudesesoo m scams ww.mm+ wo.mm+ ww.mm+ Heloema use monmwma ceesuem emcmcu emmuceouem mao.a «ma m.mNH Head Ham owa oema M mam sma moma 3 Ham mma moma «mm mma ewma mom omH OOH mama mom oma mmma «mo mHH voma Aooa n omma Aooa n coma nemcm anew "eeemv ecdb venom seem "enemy 08888 EESHEOEB .883 uceHeMMHQ How muenesz oasanumsncH now wheneoz emeoeum Heecmcoo xech eoaum Heudm xecsH eoeum neesmcoo mo we>ucm emmaafl> “new HH.< mqmdfi mmUHmm mmzbmzco ZH mmwzmmo m0 mMUHDZH 325 TABLE A.12 GEOMETRIC MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND INPUTS FOR SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP, BY FARM SIZE GROUP, 1965- 66 AND 19771 Paddy Crop and Purchased Nonpurchased Farm Size Group Production Land Labor Inputs Inputs (lSE7 (Acres) ays) Rates, 1965— 66 Kuruvai Small farms 3,560 1.424 90.30 38.12 57.95 Large farms 29,940 10.21 527.9 352.2 417.5 Samba Small farms 3,456 1.551 80.30 13.43 46.36 Large farms 28,470 11.21 534.8 566.1 234.9 Thaladi Small farms 3,022 1.585 89.57 29.50 28.70 Large farms 23,710 11.34 526.4 290.2 168.0 1970-71 Kuruva1 Small farms 4,081 1.358 89.46 109.5 59.16 Large farms 46,360 12.79 692.9 1645.0 532.5 Samba Small farms 3,449 1.439 75.03 54.52 36.21 Large farms 25,590 9.088 443.0 655.7 165.1 Thaladi Small farms 3,085 1.514 87.61 100.2 29.63 Large farms 35,660 14.30 688.9 1569.0 261.1 326 TABLE A.13 ESTIMATED PRODUCTION ELASTICITIES OF INPUTS USED IN PADDY PRODUCTION ON SAMPLE FARMS IN SURVEY VILLAGES, BY PADDY CROP, BY FARM SIZE GROUP, 1965-66 AND 1970-71. Paddy Cr0p Elasticity S.D. Sig. R2 1965-66 1m: (n=130) o. 982 Land 1.080 0.087 <0.0005 Labor -0.082 0.088 0.355 Purchased inputs 0.009 0.009 0.328 Nonpurchased Inputs 0.017 0.037 0.649 Samba (n=35) 0.989 Land 0.895 0.177 <0.0005 Labor 0.079 0.173 0.652 Purchased inputs 0.015 0.017 0.387 Nonpurchased Inputs 0.075 0.059 0.217 Thaladi (n=l30) 0.976 Land 1.077 0.094 <0.0005 Labor -0.085 0.099 0.393 Purchased inputs —0.001 0.009 0.925 Nonpurchased Inputs 0.004 0.050 0.936 1970-71 Kuruvai (n—135) 0.974 Land 1.129 0.117 <0.0005 Labor —0.156 0.125 0.216 Purchased inputs 0.025 0.031 0.421 Nonpurchased Inputs 0.037 0.046 0.426 Samba (n= 31) 0-990 Land 0.668 0.226 0.007 Labor 0.255 0.227 0.272 Purchased inputs 0.118 0.034 0.002 Nonpurchased Inputs —0.026 0.042 0.534 Thaladi (n=135) 0-967 Land 0.307 0.120 0.012 Labor 0.318 0.130 0.016 Purchased inputs 0.051 0.032 0.116 Non ed Ifigiigas 0.426 0.056 <0.0005 327 oooo.H mmav. mama. Nmmm. mmwm. musmsfl bwmmcousmqoz oooo.a mmmv. mmmv. ommv. mummcfl pmmmnoudm oooo.H mnmm. mmnm. Honmq oooo.H Hmmm. pawn oooo.H cofluospoum flUmHch oooo.a swam. vmam. mvmm. vhmm. musmsfl pmmmnousmqoz oooo.a mvon. Hoah. mmHn. musmcfl pmmmnousm oooo.H ommm. mmmm. uonmq oooo.H Hemm. Gama oooo.H coflpospoum mnemm oooo.H Huaw. mmmm. mmvm. puma. mudmcfl pmmmnoudmcoz oooo.H mnvm. vamm. mmmm. musmcfl pwmmnousm ooo.H wmmm. mmnm. Honda oooo.H momm. pcmq oooo.H GOHuOSmoum Hm>susm mudmcH musmcH Hoan pawn soaposwoum menmfium> pwmmnonsmcoz pmmmsousm paw mono .33 :85 ESE wm .mmwfiqg oneoooomm 39E mom mone ww>msm ZH m2msuax mudmcH muamcH uonmq pawn composooum mmaflmwum> Ummmnousmcoz pmmmnousm can mono ANIOBmH .momu Manda Mm .mm04AAH> NM>MDm 2H m2m¢m mam2¢m ZO mmD BDmZH 92¢ ZOHBUDDOMQ NDQém mom mZOHB¢AHMMOU ma.< mqmdfi =mwnm0l0mmN= mnmsz m0 me842 APPENDIX B ACIZCIJNI'ING FORM FOR 0049mm TOTAL VALUE IMO/1E Paddy Total production (balance of paddy) XXXX kalams* (kind) payment to landlord XXX (kind) payment to owners of __' managed land XXX Total Rim land payments :5“: Net retained production XXXX kalams Value of net retained production (Net retained paddy X price per kalaml) XXXXX rupees Purchased inputs Chemical fertilizer XXX Manure and compact XXX Plant protection XXX Hired bullock plowing xxx Hired tractor XXX Other expenses )O__0_(_ 'Ibtal purchased inputs -XXX rupees Non-purchased inputs 0m manure2 XXX Seed3 an; 'Ibtal non-purchased inputs -XXX rupees Labor wages Rupee paymeng XXX Kind payment )O__(_X_ 'Ibtal wages -XXX rupees Jprice per kalam = weighted average price of sales for this crOp 2valued at average village price 3valued at weighted average price of sales for this crOp * 1 kalam = 1/2 bag = 28.5 kilograms - 62.7 pounds. 330 Other production costs Irrigation XXX Credit 4 XXX Water and land tax xxx Machinery depreciation xxx '1le other costs4 -XXX rupees Rupee payment to owners of managed land -XXX rupees Value of family labor5 -—XXX rupees Net value to the enterprise XXXX mpees Net value inccme from paddy cultivation6 XXXX rupees II. Other crOps 'Ibtal value of production XXX7 rupees Purchased inputs XX Hired labor costs XX Value of own labor5 Q Total costs -XX rupees Net incare frun other crOps xxx rupees III. Agricultural labor incane Other farms Paddy xxx Other crops xxx Own farm Paddy XXX Other crops & Total agricultural labor incane XXX rupees Other agricultural incane X33 rupees 4divided between paddy crops for the season according to area 5valued at average village wage rates according to operation 651111 of net value for all paddy crops for the amp year (Kuruvai & Samba & Thaladi) 7valued at price for sales or average village price where there were no sales 8includes incane frcm goat sales, milk business, managing land, inccme frun rented land 331 'Ibtal agricultural incane XXXX ru] Agricultural income tax9 -xxx 1:: 8 Net agricultural incane 1000: IV. Nonagricultural inccme Marketing 391‘ 1 all products xxxx Equiment rental Bur , XXXX Non agricultural erploymentll XXXX Investment income XXXX Businessele XXXX Other incanel3 XX}O( Total non-agricultural incane XXXX rupees Total household income XXXXX rupees 9paid according to area owned paid mly by those individuals with greater than 7.5 acres loincludes tractor hire, bullock hire, cart hauling, filter point rental, and manuring nineludes labor and professional positions 12includes provision shop, tea hotel, cycle rental, bullock sales agent, local doctor, building contracting and rice mill 13teuple priest _————_—;IW APPENDIX C ABBREVIATED SURVEY SCHEDULE Interviewers name Schedule no. ___________________ Date Village Post Office Address Farmer's name Part I Farmer's background and household information Household Level of Main Subsidiary Member Age Sex Education Occupation Occupation . Caste Subcaste Part II Farm assets1 A. 1970-71 land holdings (record in cents) 1. How much land did you own in 1970—71? 2. How much land did you cultivate (net) in 1970-71? 3. How much land did you rent out in 1970-71? 4. Do you manage someone else's land? Relationship Acres B. Utilization of land2 1The same information was collected for 1965—66. 2This information was collected separately for owned land, land rented out, and land rented in. Qggp Kuruvai paddy Samba paddy Thaladi paddy Summer Annual crOps Other crops C. How much livestock do you own? Bullocks Work buffaloes Milk cows Milk buffaloes Poultry Pigs Goats Other Total D. What kind of machinery or Burmese setturn Bullock cart Knapsack sprayer Tractor This 2 (D (T 333 village Dry Other Wet 1970-71 NO. Value 1970-71 NO. Value villages 251 Total 1965-66 No. implements do you own? Value 1965-66 No. Value 334 [.5 Value No. Value when purchased? horsepower “ Any other implements or machinery with value above Rs. 50? Total Part III 1. 2. Part IV High yielding variety use When did you begin using high yielding paddy varieties? _ Variety X335 Season Acres ADT-27 IR-8 Others If haven't grown any high yielding varieties or have stOpped using them, what is the reason(s)? Details on land purchases and sales A. Land purchase Did you purchase any land in the last five years? Yes No If yes: Year of purchase Area purchased acres Total price Rs How did you finance this purchase? % cash % loan , who was lender? 335 Why did the owner sell the land? B. Land sales Did you sell any_land in the last five years? Yes No If yes: Year of sale Area sold acres Total price Rs Why did you sell the land? Part V CrOp production A. Paddy3 To First Saxnd mefiity TOUfl. Ikudr Area ‘kufiety 1fiueshhr; thnaflung 1x>labmr pnmhxmioniknd (hmed Renuxbin B. (fibercnpps4 . Quantity to mendty vans: crop Iuea Inodmfifion lamiknd sohi ofsnles Punflwsed (Mned IRflfiEdfihl PartVI Ifhadrented—in land, whatweretheterms of the agreement? Crop Area Fixed amount (Rs or Kolams) Share % 3Separate information was collected for each paddy crop for 1970-71 and 1965-66. 4Separate information was collected for 1970—71 and 1965-66. 336 Supply credit? yes no amount * ~ “ Supply inputs? Which inputs? Quantity of inputs No. of years with this piece of land? Type of agreement? Oral? Written? Other terms? Part VII Paddy Sales3 Paddy Quantity Total Crop sold Variety Price Value Buyer Location of buyer Was the sale tied to any credit arrangements? How? Paddy straw sold Rs Part VIII Production inputs A. Paddy3 Total cost (Rs) Input Unit Quantity if_purchased Urea Kgs Am. Sulphate Kgs Di-am phosphate Kgs Super phOSphate Kgs Potash Kgs Paddy mixes Kgs Manure or compost Gntr kxd Seed Kgs Seedlings Bundles 337 Kgs or tins Plant protection type Bullock hire with more days Bullock hire with- out more days Tractor hire acres Tractor fuel and repair Other B. Other crops4 Crop Quantity Manure or compost Seed Bulloch hire with men Bulloch hire without men Tractor hire Tractor fuel and repair Other Labor, Days Casual Male Female Permanent Male Female Total cost (Rs) if purchased 338 Family Male Female Part IX Paddy labor3 6 Casmd6 labor fete of Fafily Penm labor labor (keratkm Khrsery Pladng Pulling adehgs Tranqflant- ing Weafing Fertilizer Plant ' protection Hanest Iredfing Tranqxnting sThe same information was collected for family labor hired out to earn fiums. 6Separate information was collected for each type of labor. 339 .Aiditional payments to permanent laborers l-‘ \D \l O I \l |-‘ 1965-66 Housing Daily meals Paddy HI! Clothing Special gifts HHII Other Part X Credit A. Production credit3 Amount borrowed Length Rate of Other Lender Cash Kind of loan interest terms B. Medium or long term agricultural loans Type of Length Am't Rate of Other Lender loan of loan borrowed interest terms C. Loans for consumption4 Purpose Amount Rate of Other Lender of loan borrowed interest terms D. Lending to others4 Purpose Amount Rate of Length Other Borrower of loan loaned interest of loan terms Part XI Non-agricultural income A. Do you buy paddy from other farmers for resale? yes ' no 340 If yes: How much did you buy for resale last year? (1970-71) How much did you buy for resale in 1965—66? How much extra price did you get by re—selling this paddy? 1970—71: Rs per 1965—66: Rs per B. Do you purchase other agricultural products for resale? yes no If yes: How much extra income did you get from selling other agricultural products in: 1970—71: Rs 1965-66: Rs C. Did you earn any money from hiring out equipment? Type Units x Rate = Total Rs 1970-71 ____ _____ x ____ = 1965—66 ____ x = D. Do you or anyone in your household work in any non—agricultural labor or job? Family Type of Number of Rate of memxm jpb daysvxmked gypay TbtalIG 1970-71 1965-66 E. Do you have any business of your own? 341 Typecflftusnrxs Yeatgznetincom3(Rs) 1970-71 1965-66 IX>yoquweemnroflmm'bumsumanzoMEudetbe:finm? Typecnf NWIHRLOf InwesUmmm mesomxm Emerh{reUKn 1970-71 1965-66 II>yoquNeanw'OUrm'smurescflfimane? Source Amount per year 1970-71 1965-66 APPENDIX D LABOR OPERATIONS IN PADDY CULTIVATIONl 1. Nursery There are two types of nursery preparations used in Thanjavur, namely, dry nursery and wet nursery. In the case of dry nursery, the land is plowed immediately after the harvest of the previous crop season and is plowed periodically after summer rains in March or April. After the application of manure or the penning of cattle or sheep, the land is plowed again until a fine tilth is achieved. At the time of sowing, the land is leveled and seed beds formed. After the seeds are sown, they are covered with finely powdered manure or ash and then irrigated. Filter point wells, open wells, or tanks are used to supply irrigation water for nursery to be able to transplant seedlings at the time of release of canal irrigation. The growth of the seedlings can then be controlled if the irrigation canals are opened late by regulating the quantity of water on the seedlings. Wet nursery is raised only after water has been released in the canals. The land is flooded and plowed a number of times to get a soft puddle. Then it is leveled and formed into seed beds. Sprouted seeds are then sown in the bed and irrigated carefully for a few days until the seedlings have all come up. After one and a half to two weeks the water is 1Most of this information is based on an I.A.D.P. report [1966]. EII:____________________________________________________-““=“:£“______"”“ 343 allowed to stand until the seedlings are ready for planting. In addition, the nursery labor operation includes re— pairing of bunds separating fields and minor repairs in canals adjoined to the paddy fields as well as other general preparations for the main field cultivation such as deliver- ing manure to the fields, basal fertilizer application, if any, and pulling out a green manure crop when it has achieved heavy growth. While mostly men are involved in the nursery operation, women may be employed for some parts. 2. Plowing-puddling The plowing—puddling Operation done only by men begins after the field has been flooded and the soil is well soaked. The object is to get a fine mud consistency to pro- vide for easy transplantation of the seedlings. If bullock power is used, the field is usually plowed three to four times along with a leveling operation.2 Increasingly, tractors with cage wheels have been used in Thanjavur District for the plowing-puddling operation. The tractors usually make two passes. Although the tractor eliminates most of the need for bullock power, bullocks are normally used to level the field after tractor plowing. 3. Pulling seedlings Pulling seedlings involves pulling the seedlings 2In the new-Delta, where the soil is lighter and less clay, six or seven plowings are necessary. 344 carefully out of the seed bed (to protect the root system) and putting the seedlings in bundles in preparation for transplanting. Generally, only men are employed in pulling seedlings. 4. Transplanting Transplanting is simply the Operation of placing the seedlings in the mud-like consistency of the paddy field. If line planting is used, a string is stretched across the field to insure prOper spacing and moved along as the transplanting taked place. Although only women labor do the actual tranSplanting,3 men are sometimes employed to move the line for line planting and to place the seedlings near the women. 5. Weeding Hand weeding is usually accomplished by women during the growing stage of the paddy. One or two weedings may be done. 6. Fertilizer application In addition to any basal fertilizer application, chemi- cal fertilizers are distributed by men in the paddy fields after the seedlings have been transplanted. 7. Plant protection With the aid of sprayers and dusters men apply pesti- cides to prevent infestation of insects. 3When the question was raised why only women were used in transplanting, the response was that only women had the capacity to bend their backs over long periods of time. 345 8. Harvest and first threshing Included in this operation is the cutting of paddy, transporting the paddy to the threshing floor, threshing by beating on the ground or a log and cleaning and bagging the paddy. In the two villages studied here, this operation was done almost entirely by men. But in other parts Of the District women were observed to assume more Of a role in the harvest and first threshing. 9. Second threshing A second threshing is done because the first threshing does not get all of the grain out Of the straw. About ten percent of the paddy usually remains with the straw after the first threshing. The second thresing which uses mostly male labor is accomplished by having cattle walk over the straw after being spread out on the treshing floor. Where available, tractors have replaced cattle for this purpose. Having the straw walked over by cattle or driving over it with a tractor also serves to make the paddy straw more palatable for cattle consumption. 10. Transporting This Operation refers to the transport Of threshed paddy from the threshing floor to the household for storage. Where the fields are a great distance from the house, this Operation is differentiated from the threshing operations for which labor is hired separately. APPENDIX E RESEARCH COSTS The following accounting indicates the cost of this research project for the period May 1971 to March 1973. The costs are divided between the field research phase and the analysis and writing phase showing the sources Of funds used to defray the eXpenses. Field Research Phase1 Agency for International Development International travel Air fare $4116.00 Per diem allowance 878.38 Excess baggage 748.29 Total $ 5,742.67 In-country travel Transportation $ 249.74 Per diem __482.00 Total $ 731.74 Field expenses Local transport $1262.26 Enumerator salaries 975.00 Secretary salary 342.11 Paper supplies 146.70 Total $ 2.726.07 Living allowances $ 2,710.53 $11,911.01 Total 1For the period May, 1971 to December, 1971. 347 Midwest University Consortium for International Activities Tuition (paid in absentia) $ 296.00 Medical insurance 221.00 Pre-departure costs 198.30 Settling-in costs $00.00 Books and journals 100.00 Total Department of Agricultural Economics 2 Family subsistence Total Analysis and Writing Phase3 Department of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University Research assistantship $7649.46 Computer services4 2000.00 Clerical assistance 312.00 Total Total research costs $ 1,315.30 $ 1,904.64 $15,130.95 $ 9,961,46 $25,092.41 2The family returned to the United States to live during the field research phase. 3For the period January, 1972 to March, 1973. 4This is an estimate of the computer costs. It does not include the cost of punching about 12,000 cards or approximately three man-months of programming servrces. ITY LIBRAFNES )I’QIL‘LN Hum-Habit: STATE UNIVER .‘1‘1‘ii‘1i‘ 1 H l :11»! WNW 3 1293 031 6