a‘.Q-I::I..o c 91"}! ...ht.'...ovot|¢l._. v A . -o.7‘763|.|c youuttvrvthyfll IKE... .xllmflez T» . Nun! 14.064! 7‘6...l‘..7. .‘XO p'v b!a!..‘.v4lt..lo dict: VIVA} .: .... a Vi..1tt1¢l! G v i "I O..- ~u .2. I o . t fbll v0! Dov ..- 1.»... .5; .. {our u ' I - I. '07 V 0.. it u .3.” nun i. :0 .5! v I I ( | ”I.” I .l X 391.4. .4 ad- ‘3 n .a .IH .5 V V. luv 'Ior, lE... t .u c IV a aim 51E?! El ' 3; HI .1... .1’4: .lpnl.v.v.9|’.. I -Atcrv"). . ll- .0 . .IIJIoA (O a“ 105‘ 0 v. It fLW’M» . ~. lg’ffém‘w ' eswn:~:?5?u.h “'1‘. mmumh I. . ‘57- .‘ ‘ ‘ l‘ I. I y l ‘ “ , 'I'" . i x , O "f {II ? Mn «‘10.... I: r . I|| c v. 05”. ill- In L x I 0 O. t s 4 4? 3 . Itll .. N14..- . lo? . V I'.vv . . . .. ‘HL n—lhpvrhfldflooav...lhbnltrlt11‘r] .t !h u. . | . r l Iv! lulwywmulmlllulmumIlmllml “£333 1 9458 a. -n .d- uhnmhA‘Aa-ir' E n .‘ '5" t .- 7, f ‘_ _ . 1‘ .. a. 3 g . I .- I! A" . This is to certify that the dissertation entitled EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME FROM FARMING, NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND OFF-FARM WORK ON IRRIGATED AND RAINFED FARMS, KHON KAEN, THAILAND presented by m Somsak Priebprom ,‘., has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Agricultural Economics “AW/AIM Major professor Date February 26, 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘ RETURNING MATEREAE§3 IE/iESI_J Elise in book drop to [ABRARJES remove this checkout from ‘A_H_13H_IEL your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ‘4 FEB ‘2‘ 1 .2011 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME FROM FARMING, NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND OFF-FARM WORK ON IRRIGATED AND RAINFED FARMS, KHON KAEN, THAILAND By Somsak Priebprom A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1982 - - A A ' ' - ll ‘ r "I - , y, I ABSTRACT EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME FROM FARMING, NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND OFF-FARM WORK ON IRRIGATED AND RAINFED FARMS, KHON KAEN, THAILAND BY, Somsak Priebprom 11/ f r T , . The primary objective of this study was to appraise alternative uses of family reSOurces for farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work and their impact on production, employment and income of rural farm households in Khon Kaen Province. The study attempted to provide detail on household nonfarm andoff-farm activities and their relationship to farm activities and to study their contribution to family income and their share of total labor utiliiation. The data used in this study were obtained from the Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project in Thailand and from a supplemental sur- vey conducted in Khon Kaen Province, Northeast Thailand for the agricul- tural year 1980/1981. A poly-period linear programming model was developed to represent farm households with three different farm size groups for both rainfed and irrigated areas. The model contained the usual farm enterprises consistent with the major enterprises actually found in the study area. In addition, major nonfarm enterprises and off-farm employment oppor- tunities were included in detail to test the complementarity and compe- titiveness of farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm employment. The Somsak Priebprom model specified an objective function to maximize net farm household income subject to land, labor, capital, subsistence needs and other con- straints. The planning period covered one year, beginning with the wet season and continuing for 12 months through the dry season up to the beginning of the next wet season. Simulation analyses with some assumed situations varying from the initial model were performed to obtain in- sights into how some government policies and programs might be used to increase rural household income and employment through a change in some alternative nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportunities, in- cluding alternative crop enterprises during the dry season. Some of the findings of the study are as follows: (1) In the case of rainfed farms, farm enterprises provided the primary source of family net income for the medium and large size farm, while the most important sources of family net income for small farm size was off-farm work. The' net farm income proportional to total in- come was positively related to the operational size of farm. Income obtained from off-farm work on the basis of a percentage of the family net income seemed to show a close relationship to the farm size, but in the opposite manner. Nonfarm enterprise (or cottage industry) generated a significant amount of income for every farm size class in the rainfed area. The average family net income per household of the irrigated farm households was higher than that for the rainfed farm households. x Farm enterprise was the most important source of family earning for all farm size classes of the irrigated farms. Off-farm employment also ' played a significant role in generating income for farm families even in the irrigated area. Nonfarm enterprise provided some supplementary income to the irrigated farm families. Somsak Priebprom (2) For all sample households, the importance of farm work expres- sed as the percent of total family labor used increased with the size of the operational farm. The relative share of family labor in farm work for the irrigated farms was higher than for the rainfed farms. The share of nonfarm work (cottage industry) proportional to the total fam- ily labor use for the rainfed farm was larger than for the irrigated farms. The contribution of off-farm work proportional to total family labor use decreased as farm size increased for the total sample of house- holds as well as for both rainfed and irrigated farm households. (3) The composition of enterprise mix suggested by the programming Solutions for the rainfed and irrigated farm households with every farm size class demonstrated the possibility for both rainfed and irrigated farmers to combine farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work to achieve maximum net family income under existing family resource constraints with subsistence and living expenditure requirements. (4) Three common nonfarm enterprises of sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making were recommended in the optimal plan for the rainfed farm households, whereas cotton weaving, mat making and basket making were recommended in the optimal plan for the irrigated farm households. (5) In the optimum solutions, every farm size class of the rainfed and irrigated farm household, had some members (both males and females) with off-farm work. Without these farm employment opportunities, both rainfed and irrigated farm household would be worse off because their family net income and employment would decline substantially. Converse- ly, with the assumption of more off-farm employment opportunities the rainfed and irrigated farm households would have substantially higher Somsak Priebprom family net income and employment. The model results also suggested that both rainfed and irrigated family labor always enthusiastically respond to an off-farm work offering a wage ranging from 24 to 35 baht per day (or more). To my mother, whose attitude of perseverance shaped my character and career. To my beloved father who laid down the foundation but has passed away before seeing my dream come true. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my greatest debt of gratitude to Dr. Warren H. Vincent who served as my curriculum and thesis advisor. His constructive guidance, assistance, counsel and understanding were invaluable to me and made my academic dream come true. His helpful comments and patient edit- ing of this study are also very gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation is also expressed to the members of my guidance and thesis committees, Drs. K.P.L. Chan, S. Ethier, G.L. Johnson, M.T. Weber, D.C. Mead and K. Liedholm for their assistance and constructive criticism. Profound appreciation is extended to professors John R. Brake and Dr. Karl T. Wright for their support and encouragement during the years of my graduate study. I am grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation for providing the fellow- ship that made my graduate program possible. Thanks are due to MSU Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project (Thailand Mission) for its finan- cial support for this study. Special thanks are due to Chris Wolfe and other personnel in MSU's computer for their assistance with the computer programs. Special appreciation is expressed to Sherry Rich, Barbara Dickaut, and Debbie Greer who typed the first draft of the dissertation. I would like especially to thank Debbie Greer and Nancy Creed who cheerfully and carefully typed the final draft. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ........................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................... iii LIST OF TABLES ......................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ......................... xii LIST OF MAPS .......................... xiii CHAPTERS: 1 INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 1.1 General Background to the Problem ........... 1 1.2 Need for the Study .................. 6 1.3 Related Research ................... 8 - 1.4 Objectives of the Study ................ 15 1.5 Methodology ...................... 16 1.5.1 Data Collection Procedure for the Study Area ................... 16 - 1.5.1.1 Study Area .............. 16 . 1.5.1.2 Sampling Procedure .......... 18 . 1.5.1.3 Data ................. 21 ~ 1.5.2 Procedure ................... 22 “ 1.6 Organization of the Study ............... 23 . 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ............... 25 2.1 Northeast Thailand .................. 25 2.2 Khon Kaen ....................... 28 2.2.1 Physical Features ............... 28 2.2.1.1 Soil Type ............... 28 2.2.1.2 Climate ................ 28 2.2.2 Demographic Features .............. 30 . 2.2.3 Irrigation ................... 30 2.2.4 Transportation and Communication Systems. . . . 32 2.2.5 Economic Aspect ................ 32.x 2.3 Village Characteristics ................ 34 - 2.3.1 Irrigated Farming ............... 34 2.3.2 Upland Crop Farming .............. 35 2.3.3 Rainfed Farming ................ 35 2.3.4 Amphur Muang .................. 35 2.3.4.1 Kok Nang Ngarm ............ 35 2.3.4.2 Nong Ta Kai .............. 36 2.3.4.3 Ban Ped ................ 37 2.3.5 Ban Pai District (Kok Sam Ran) ......... 37 2.3.6 Chonnabot District (Don Kar) .......... 38 iv CHAPTERS: 2.3.7 Nam Pong .................... 2.3.7.1 Kok Soong ............... 2.3.7.2 Wang Toa ............... 2.3.7.3 Ta Kaserm ............... 3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ................. 3.1 Land and Farm Size .................. 3.1.1 Land Holding and Farm Size ........... 3.1.2 Land Tenure .................. 3.1.3 Land Fragmentation ............... 3.1.4 Land Use .................... 3.1.5 Existing Cropping Patterns ........... 3.2 Family Net Income and Farm Size ............ 3.3 Nonfarm Enterprises .................. 3.3.1 Sericulture .................. 3.3.2 Silk Weaving .................. 3.3.3 Sticky Rice Container Making .......... 3.3.4 Mat Making ................... 3.3.5 Cotton Weaving ................. 3.3.6 Basket Making ................. 3.4 Off-Farm Employment .................. 3.4.1 Off-Farm Employment in Agricultural Field Work ................... 3.4.2 Off-Farm Employment from Agricultural Wage Sources .................. 3.5 Family Composition, Labor Force and Labor 0000 cow Profiles ....................... 3.5.1 Family Composition and Labor Force ....... 3.5.2 Land-Labor Relationship ............ 3.5.3 Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm and Off-Farm Activities ........ 3.5.3.1 Farm Labor .............. 3.5.3.2 Nonfarm Work ............. 3.5.3.3 Off-Farm Work ............. 3.5.3.4 Total Hours Worked Per Family Worker by Labor Class ......... 4 Seasonal Distribution of Family Labor Use . . . 5 Variability in Monthly Distribution of Family Labor Use ................ 6 Labor Requirement for Crops .......... 7 e 1 . . Crop Labor by Source .............. o 5 hold Consumption Pattern ............. .6. Food Expenditures ............... 3.6.2 Nonfood Expenditures .............. Household Credit Use ................. Models to be Developed ................ 5 5 5 5 u Page CHAPTERS: 4 THE LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL ................ 119 4.1 General Features of the Model ............. 119 4.2 Structure of LP Model ................. 121 4.2.1 The Objective Function ............. 121 4. 2. 2 Alternative Activity Set ............ 129 4.2.2.1 Crop Enterprises ............ 129 4.2.2.2 Nonfarm Enterprises .......... 130 4.2.2.3 Labor Hiring In Activities ....... 131 4.2.2.4 Labor Hiring Out Activities ...... ' 131 4.2.2.5 Capital Borrowing Activities ...... 132 4.2.2.6 Capital Payback Activities ....... 133 4.2.2.7 Capital Transfer Activities ...... 133 4.2.2. 8 Household Consumption Activities. . . . 133 4.2.3 Constraint Set ................. 135 4.2.3.1 Land .................. 135 4.2.3.2 Family Labor Supply .......... 138 4.2.3.3 Hired Labor .............. 139 4.2.3.4 Initial Available Capital ....... 139 4.2.3.5 Credit ................. 140 4.2.3.6 Loan Payback .............. 141 4.2.3.7 Household Expenditures ......... 141 4.2.3.8 Minimum Rice Consumption ........ 141 4.2.3.9 A Limit of Planted Area for Corn and Tobacco ............ 142 4.2.3.10 A Limit of Off-Farm Work ........ 142 5 RESULTS AND ANALYSES OF THE RAINFED FARM MODELS ....... 143 5.1 Optimal Solution of the Rainfed Farms ......... 143 5.1.1 Crop Enterprises ................ 145 5.1.2 Nonfarm Enterprises ............... 149 5.1.3 Hire-In Labor .................. 151 5.1.4 Off-Farm Work .................. 153 5.1.5 Capital Borrowing Activity ........... 154 5.1.6 Nonbasis Enterprises: Shadow Prices and Stability Coefficients ............. 155 5.2 Optimal Labor Utilization Pattern ........... 160 5.3 Shadow Prices of Land and Labor ............ 166 5.4 Comparison of Actual and Model Results ......... 170 6 RESULTS OF THE IRRIGATED FARM MODELS ............ 174 6.1 Optimal Solution of the Irrigated Farms ........ 174 6.1.1 Crop Enterprises ................ 176 6.1.2 Nonfarm Enterprises ............... 180 6.1.3 Hire-In Labor .................. 181 6.1.4 Off-Farm Work .................. 182 6.1.5 Borrowed Capital ................ 183 6.1.6 Nonbasis Enterprises: Shadow Prices and Stability Coefficients ............. 184 6.2 Optimal Labor Utilization Pattern ........... 188 vi Page CHAPTERS: 6.3 Shadow Prices of Land and Labor ............ 194 6.4 Comparison of Actual and Model Results ......... 196 7 SIMULATION ANALYSES: IMPACT OF CHANGE IN ALTERNATIVE FARM, NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT 0N HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT ............... 200 7.1 Simulation Analysis fbr the Rainfed Farms ....... 201 7.1.1 Situation I: Without Off-Farm Employment Opportunities .................. 201 7.1.2 Situation II: More Off-Farm Employment Opportunities .................. 204 7.1.3 Situation III: Variation in Wages ....... 206 7.1.4 Situation IV: Two Additional Alternatives for Sericulture ................. 208 7.1.5 Situation V: No Silk Weaving Enterprise . . . . 211 7.1.6 Situation VI: Variation in Crop Yield ..... 212 7.2 Simulation Analysis fbr the Irrigated Farms ...... 214 7.2.1 Situation 1: Without Off- Farm Employment Oppotrunities .................. 214 7.2.2 Situation II: More Off-Farm Employment Opportunities .................. 215 7.2.3 Situation III: Variation in Wages ....... 217 7.2.4 Situation IV: Year-Round Availability of Alternative Nonfarm Enterprise ......... 219 7.2.5 Situation V: Fully Irrigated Situation ..... 222 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................... 225 8.1 Summary and the Descriptive Analysis .......... 228 8.1.1 Land Use and Farm Size ............. 228 8.1.2 Family Composition and Labor Force ....... 229 8.1.3 Land-Labor Relationship ............. 230 8.1.4 Family Income Sources and Farm Size ....... 230 8.1.5 Nonfarm Enterprises ............... 232 8.1.6 Off-Farm Employment ............... 232 8.1.7 Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm, and Off-Farm Activities ........ 233 8.1.8 Household Consumption Patterns ......... 235 8.2 Su unmary and Implications of the LP Results ....... 236 8.2.1 The Programming Results for the Rainfed Farms ...................... 236 8.2.2 The Programming Results for the Irrigated Farms ...................... 237 8.3 Areas for Further Research ............... 243 APPENDIX ............................. 248 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 285 vii Page CHAPTERS: 6.3 Shadow Prices of Land and Labor ............ 194 6.4 Comparison of Actual and Model Results ......... 196 7 SIMULATION ANALYSES: IMPACT OF CHANGE IN ALTERNATIVE FARM, NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT ............... 200 7.1 Simulation Analysis fer the Rainfed Farms ....... 201 7.1.1 Situation I: Without Off-Farm Employment Opportunities .................. 201 7.1.2 Situation II: More Off-Farm Employment Opportunities .................. 204 7.1.3 Situation III: Variation in Wages ....... 206 7.1.4 Situation IV: Two Additional Alternatives for Sericulture ................. 208 7.1.5 Situation V: No Silk Weaving Enterprise . . . . 211 7.1.6 Situation VI: Variation in Crop Yield ..... 212 7.2 Simulation Analysis fbr the Irrigated Farms ...... 214 7.2.1 Situation 1: Without Off- Farm Employment Oppotrunities .................. 214 7.2.2 Situation II: More Off-Farm Employment Opportunities .................. 215 7.2.3 Situation III: Variation in Wages ....... 217 7.2.4 Situation IV: Year-Round Availability of Alternative Nonfarm Enterprise ......... 219 7.2.5 Situation V: Fully Irrigated Situation ..... 222 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................... 225 8.1 Summary and the Descriptive Analysis .......... 228 8.1.1 Land Use and Farm Size ............. 228 8.1.2 Family Composition and Labor Force ....... 229 8.1. 3 Land-Labor Relationship ............. 230 8. 1. 4 Family Income Sources and Farm Size ....... 230 8. 1. 5 Nonfarm Enterprises ............... 232 8 l. 6 Off-Farm Employment ............... 232 8.1. 7 Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm, and Off-Farm Activities ........ 233 8 L 8 Household Consumption Patterns ......... 235 8.2 Su ummary and Implications of the LP Results ....... 236 8.2.1 The Programming Results for the Rainfed Farms ...................... 236 8.2.2 The Programming Results for the Irrigated Farms ...................... 237 8.3 Areas for Further Research ............... 243 APPENDIX ............................. 248 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 285 vii .10 .11 .12 LIST OF TABLES Village Phase I and II Survey in Khon Kaen Province. . . . Climatological Data for Khon Kaen During the Period of 1951-1975 ....................... Distribution of Land Area Operated by Households ..... Land Ownership by Farm Size Groups of Rainfed and Irrigated Farms ...................... Noncontiguous Fields by Farm Size Groups of Rainfed Farm in Khon Kaen ..................... Norcontiguous Fields by Farm Size Groups of Irrigated Farm in Khon Kaen ..................... Crops and Area Planted by Farm Size Class of Rainfed and Irrigated Farms ................... Composition of Family Net Income by Source and Farm Size Group of Rainfed and Irrigated Farms ......... Types of Nonfarm Enterprises, Off-Farm Work and Number of Farm Households Engaged ............. Number of Family Members by Age Groups and Sex by Farm Size Class of Rainfed Farms ............. Number of Family Members by Age Groups and Sex by Farm Size Class of Irrigated Farms ............ Sex and Age Composition of Family Labor Force by Farm Size Groups of Rainfed Farms and Irrigated Farms. . . Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm and Off- Farm Activities, Rainfed and Irrigated Farms by Fann Size and Labor Class ................... Hours Worked Per Person Per Household Per Year by Type of Work, by Labor Class and by Farm Size, Rainfed and Irrigated Farms ................ viii 46 48 49 50 59 62 73 75 77 79 83 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Percent of Total Hours Worked Per Person, Per House- hold, Per Year by Type of Work, by Labor Class and Farm Size, Rainfed and Irrigated Farms .......... Approximate 8-hour Days of Annual Employment Per Person by Type of Work, Labor Class and Farm Size, Rainfed and Irrigated Farms ................ Seasonal Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Non- Farm Enterprise and Off-Farm Work of the Rainfed Farms . . Seasonal Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm Enterprise and Off-Farm Work of the Irrigated Farms. . . . Monthly Composition of Total Labor Utilization and Seasonal Index of Average Total Family Labor by Farm Type ........................... Monthly Composition of Family Labor Use and Seasonal Indices of Monthly Family Labor by Labor Type and Size of Farm ....................... Mean and Coefficient of Variation for Monthly Family Labor Allocation to Farm Work, Farm Plus Nonfarm, Plus Off-Farm and Total Labor Use by Farm Type and by Farm Size ....................... Percentage Crop Labor Uses in Rice Production by Source and Activities of Rainfed and Irrigated Farms . . . Average Household Expenditures by Types and by Farm Size Group of Rainfed and Irrigated Farms ......... Seasonal Household Consumption Expenditures of the Rainfed Farms by Farm Size Group ............. Seasonal Household Consumption Expenditures of the Irrigated Farms by Farm Size Group ............ Gross Margin or Net Return by Enterprise of Rainfed Farms ........................... Gross Margin or Net Return by Enterprise of Irrigated Farms ........................... Household Minimum Consumption Requirement by Period for Rainfed and Irrigated Farms (baht per household) . . . Land, Labor and Capital Constraints (RHS) for Rainfed Farms by Farm Size Groups ................. ix 84 86 95 96 97 99 101 104 107 112 114 125 126 134 136 05030105 014:0.) .1O .11 Land, Labor and Capital Constraints (RHS) for Irrigated Farm by Farm Size Groups ................. Farm, Nonfarm and Family Income of Rainfed Farms ..... Optimal Farm Household Activities Pattern, Small Rainfed Farm ....................... Optimal Farm Household Activities Pattern, Medium Rainfed Farm ....................... Optimal Farm Household Activities Pattern, Large Rainfed Farm ....................... Nonbasis Enterprises and Their Shadow Prices of the Rainfed Farm Households by Farm Size Class ........ Upper Bound Stability Coefficients of Excluded Nonfarm Enterprises, Rainfed Farm Households ........... Optimal Pattern of Labor Utilization of Small Rainfed Farm ........................... Optimal Pattern of Labor Utilization of Medium Rainfed Farm ........................... Optimal Pattern of Labor Utilization of Large Rainfed Farm ........................... Shadow Price of Labor of Rainfed Farm by Farm Size Class and Period ..................... Comparison of Actual and Model Results of the Rainfed Farms ........................... Farm, Nonfarm, Off-Farm and Family Income of Irrigated Farms by Farm Size .................... Optimal Plan for Small Irrigated Farm ........... Optimal Plan for Medium Irrigated Farm .......... Optimal Plan for Large Irrigated Farm ........... Shadow Price for Nonbasis Enterprises of Irrigated Farms by Farm Size Class . ................ Upper Bound Stability Coefficients of Excluded Nonfarm Enterprise, Irrigated Farm Households ........... 3519.9. 137 144 146 147 148 156 158 161 162 163 168 172 175 177 178 179 185 187 .10 .11 Optimal Farm . . Optimal Irrigated Farm ...................... Optimal Farm . . Pattern of Labor Utilization of Small Irrigated Pattern of Labor Utilization of Medium Pattern of Labor Utilization of Large Irrigated Shadow Prices of Selected Resources of Irrigated Farms by Size Class and Period .............. Comparison of Actual and Model Results of Irrigated Farms. . Results for the Results Results Results Results for the Results Results of a Change in Off-Farm Employment Opportunities Rainfed Fanns ................... of Variation in Wages for the Rainfed Farms. . . . of a Change in Nonfarm Enterprises ........ of Crop Yield Variation for the Rainfed Farms. . . of a Change in Off-Farm Employment Opportunities Irrigated Farms .................. of Variation in Wages for the Irrigated Farms. . . of a Change in Nonfarm Enterprise and Fully Irrigated Situation .................... Optimal Farm Household Activities Pattern for the Irrigated Farms with Fully Irrigated Situation ...... xi Page 189 190 191 195 197 202 207 210 213 216 218 221 223 LDGJVOSUT .11 .12 LIST OF FIGURES Existing Cropping Alternatives of Rainfed Farms in Khon Kaen ........................ Existing Cropping Alternatives of Irrigated Farms in Khon Kaen ........................ Crop Activities Profile by Period of Rainfed Farms in Khon Kaen ........................ Crop Activities Profile by Period of Irrigated Farms in Khon Kaen ....................... Family Labor Profile for the Small Rainfed Farms ..... Family Labor Profile for the Medium Rainfed Farms . . . . Family Labor Profile for the Large Rainfed Farms ..... Family Labor Profile for the Small Irrigated Farms. . . . Family Labor Profile for the Medium Irrigated Farms . . . Family Labor Profile for the Large Irrigated Farm . . . . Season Distribution of Household Consumption Expenditures for the Rainfed Farms ............ Season Distribution of Household Consumption Expenditures for the Irrigated Farms ........... Structure of the LP Model for Rainfed Farms ....... Structure of the LP Model for Irrigated Farms ...... xii 56 57 89 90 91 92 93 94 111 115 122 123 LIST OF MAPS Map of Khon Kaen Area ..................... xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction 1.1 General Background to the Problem Agriculture has played an important part in the economy of Thailand and it is expected to play the same pivotal role in the future. Al- though other sectors of the economy are rapidly gaining in importance, rougly 80 percent of the population live in rural areas and mostly as farm households [NESDB, 1980]. Agricultural employs at least 62.5 per- cent of the total labor force [ESCAP, 1979] and provides some 73 percent of total export earnings [Bangkok Bank, 1980]. Thailand, like other developing countries undergoing the process of economic development, has development planning which is based on suc- cessive five year plans. Even though three fiveéyear plans have been implemented to date, most Thai farmers, who are regarded as the backbone of the nation, still have relatively low incomes. According to a re- port of the Fourth-Five Year National Plan, the average per capita in- come per year for farming is 7,113 baht (20 bahts = 1 dollar), while those engaged in manufacturing, banking (and financial business) and services earned 44,215 baht, 70,339 baht and 32,665 baht per year per person respectively. This reflects a serious problem of uneven income distribution not only between the agricultural sector and the nonagri- cultural sector, but also between rural and urban dwellers, since most of the farmers are living in rural areas. By far the largest income 2 disparity is that which compares income on a regional basis. In 1977, for example, income in the Central Region was more than twice that of the Northeast while that in Bangkok was seven times greater [USAID- Bangkok, 1980]. In addition, widespread unemployment and underemploy— ment also exist in the rural area due to lack of employment opportunity, including rapid population growth in the rural area and absence of off- farm employment opportunity. For the most recent planning period 1974-78 it was expected that the level of unemployment would reach an annual average of 3.5 to 5.0 percent of the total labor force. It was estimated that the number of unemployed persons would reach 1 million people or about 5.4 percent of the total labor force in 1980, and would reach 1.2 million people or about 5.6 percent in 1981 (NESDB, 1977). The labor force has been grow- ing at up to 3 percent per year, requiring the Thai economy to generate more than 500,000 new jobs, annually for the age cohort of the 1950's and 60's population boom [USAID-Thailand, 1980]. About two-thirds of the labor force is engaged in agriculture which is generating labor supply at about twice the rate that is being absorbed in the industrial and service sectors. Besides, the agricultural production pattern is characterized by a large degree of underemployment. In general, both underemployment and unemployment persists in the agricultural sector, but there is some variation in this pattern due to seasonality of agricultural activities and regional difference. This could be seen through the seasonal vari- ations in labor utilization in the North and the Northeast. According to data from National Statistical Office (N50, 1976), in the North in 1974, 47 percent of the male labor force in agriculture worked less 3 than 30 hours a week in the dry season while 35 percent worked more than 70 hours a week in the rainy season. In Northeast, 42 percent of the male labor force in agriculture worked less than 30 hours per week in the dry season while 32 percent worked more than 70 hours a week in the rainy season. This type of seasonal characteristic gives rise to a large and expanding pool of labor in the agriculture sector, especial- ly in the dry season. This has led to a higher level of rural and ur- ban unemployment, including a substantial migration inter-regionally, and permanent moves, usually to Bangkok. Migration into Bangkok in- creased from 92,000 in 1976 to 324,000 in 1979 (N50, 1980). This will create several problems such as urban unemployment, low income of un- skilled urban worker, population congestion and other social problems [Charsombat, 1981]. If increased employment and income opportunities are to be pro- vided, more off-farm jobs and nonfarm employment must become available.1 To have the greatest impact on agriculture, some of the off-farm jobs must provide employment opportunities during periods of the year when agricultural labor requirements are at low levels (Framingham, et a1., 1977). Because of the above unsatisfactory agricultural and rural situa- tion, the Royal Thai Government (RTG) Fourth Five-Year Plan offered the following objectives for the rural sector: 1"Off-farm" refers to wage earnings obtained away from the farm premises. "Nonfarm" refers to income generating activities by the household members taking place on the farm premises but not including crop or livestock activities. 4 (1) to raise the income level, the standard of living and socio- economic status of farmers and increase social stability in the rural areas; (2) to increase production of major crops in order to increase exports as the most important means to correct the adverse trade and balance of payments situation; (3) to reduce unemployment and underutilization of farm labor and to slow down rural-urban migration; and (4) to narrow the income gap between the urban and rural areas. More specifically, under this plan, rural development was to be fully supported by high priority programs, such as comprehensive agri- cultural development at the farm level and the development of cottage and rural industries. To alleviate unemployment and rural underemploy- ment, in particular, rural projects must be intensive in the use of labor. However, in order to achieve those objectives it is necessary to have appropriate strategies and policies, including the right actions. Recently governments of many developing countries have begun to devote increasing attention to the development of policies and programs for ex- panding productive employment and earning opportunities in the various rural nonfarm activities as a means to overcome rural problems as men- tioned above, such as Taiwan (Ho, 1976), Nigeria (Norman, 1973), Sierra Leone (Byerlee, et al., 1977), Korea (Cho, 1963) and Philippines (1L0, 1974). Chuta and Liedholm (1979) provide empirical evidences of the impor- tant role of nonfarm activities in many developing countries, such as Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines. Nonfarm activities are a source of 5 not only primary employment but also secondary or part-time employment in rural areas. They have provided a source of employment for 30 to 50 percent of the rural labor force. Besides, nonfarm activities contri- buted from 22 to 70 percent of the total rural household income in those countries. Other empirical evidence indicates that nonfarm acti- vities in rural areas in some developing countries are a source of pri- mary employment for approximately a quarter of the rural labor force. If one includes those part-time farmers who engage in nonfarm activities as a secondary occupation, the percentage increases to 40 or 50 percent. In Thailand, a recent study of the redistribution of the labor force between the agricultural sector and nonagricultural sector (Charsombat, 1978) indicates that the nonfarm activities provided about 36 percent of the total farm household income. In addition, two studies undertaken in some villages in the northern part of the country show that nonfarm activities contributed from 43 to 76 percent of the total income for small and landless farmers under conditions of less intensive cropping and as much as 42 percent under intense cropping. Somewhat over 50 percent of rural households' time was devoted to nonfarm acti- Vities (Thodey and Seetisan, 1975; Sektheera, 1978). Based on the above evidence, the policies and programs of nonfarm enterprises in rural areas and market towns, including those engaged in small scale public works activities appear to be one of the more pro- mising approaches for helping the Royal Thai Government to achieve ob- jectives stated in the Fourth Plan, in particular, to increase income and reduce unemployment_and underemployment in rural areas. There is a growing body of data which suggests that rural small scale enterprises are generally labor intensive and hence, provide 6 substantial employment (Liedholm and Chuta, 1976), thus reducing the pressure to migrate to already crowded urban areas (Byerlee and Eicher, 1972). Furthermore, establishing manufacturing firms in geographically dispersed rural areas allows small firms to serve the needs of local markets. Nonfarm enterprises produce goods for local household consump— tion, goods for export such as local handicrafts, provide construction services in public works projects, and product inputs for agricultural production. Thus, expansion of the rural nonfarm enterprise sector offers the potential of being economically viable by providing employ- ment for rural households on a seasonal or even permanent basis, supply- ing consumption needs of the local community, and raising agricultural productivity through provision of inputs (AID Project No. 493-0306, 1979; Charsombat, 1978). ' 1.2 Need For the Study Promotion of the nonfarm rural enterprise sector, however, cannot be done independently of the agricultural sector. Particularly in Thailand, where agriculture is the predominant economic sector, the ex- pansion of the nonfarm rural enterprise sector must be integrated with agricultural development. More specifically, the linkage or interrela- tionship between farm and nonfarm activities must be taken into account before the government will be able to design and implement appropriate programs and policies for stimulating the rural off-farm sector. Many U.S. agricultural economists such as Salter (1940), Ruttan (1955), Fuller (1976), and Kada (1979) stress the need for more atten- tion to be focused on the farm-nonfarm combination adjustment of the family farm. This type of farming has come to be regarded as neither 7 a minor nor abnormal, but as a significant part of the rural economy (Salter, 1940; Fuller, 1976). It has been not only a way of life to a large proportion of the farm families, but also may be both economically rational and consistent with the goals of maximizing family income and making efficient use of farm and family resources (Lee, 1965; Krasovec, 1979; Kada, 1979). Numerous empirical studies in many developing coun- tries indicate that from 10 to 20 percent of the rural male labor force are engaged in nonfarm work on a part-time basis. For instance, in Korea, 20 percent of the rural males had undertaken part-time nonfarm work, while in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Nigeria, the figures were ll, 16, and 20 percent respectively (Chuta and Liedholm, 1979). In Thailand, approximately 36 percent of all farm households worked in off-farm employment on a part-time basis (Thai government, 1975; Chalamwong, 1981). Unfortuantely, little research work has been done in the develop- ing agricultural countries, in particular Thailand, to economically appraise farm and nonfarm combination of family resources, including its impacts on production, employment and farm income of rural farm households. Most farm management studies in Thailand have focused on the organization and operation of farm activities while failing to pro- vide details on rural nonfarm activities, including their relation to farm activities [see Vanchainavin, 1980; Sriswasdilek, 1979; Thodey and Seetisan, 1975; Gramble, 1973]. There have been a few rural employment surveys (National Economic Development Board 1972; Fuhs, 1972) but, these have not included any information on the nature, extent and:COm- position of the nonfarm enterprises, which can provide the various op- portunities for on- and off-farm employment. 8 Lack of data and knowledge, including inadequate research work in Thailand, has limited the ability of policy makers in identifying and developing appropriate programs and policy for stimulating rural farm and nonfarm enterprise development and enhancing the contribution of these to overall development, employment, and the reduction of rural poverty. Thus, this study will go beyond previous farm management studies in Thailand to provide more detail on nonfarm and off-farm activities and their relationships to farm activities. In addition, a farm level model will be developed to assess the effect of nonfarm employment on 'family resource use, farm organization and household income among the rural farm households (see Bishop, 1956; Gardiner and Wysong, 1975: and Flander, 1977). The results from this study should contribute to a better understanding of farm household's total employment behavior and provide some of the information currently needed by the RTG policy makers for better decisions and actions regarding rural nonfarm enter- prise employment policy. 1.3 Related Research The combination of farming with off-farm employment--dua1 employ- ment or part-time farming--has been of interest for many years in the United States, as an economically viable alternative for improving farm family income and overcoming employment problems in the agricultural sector. An indication of this interest is reflected in the following studies which were selected to summarize what has been learned about certain aspects of dual employment farming. Salter, Jr. and Diehl (1940) and Berstrand (1967) reviewed over 24 studies on part-time farming in the U.S.A. They concluded that the 9 researchers had difficulty in defining a part-time farm and there was a need for more precise definitions and refinement of concepts. All studies reviewed were essentially static and descriptive. They suggest- ed, however, that part-time farming was not seriously competing with full-time commercial farms; that outside income was not related to the amount of farming on part-time farms; that part-time farmers were not at a serious disadvantage in securing employment; that most part-time farm families liked their mode of living; and that many part-time farm- ers had considerable farm experience. Lee (1965) provided a theoretical foundation for explaining the allocation of farm and family resources to nonfarm employment. This was an initial step in the study of the nonfarm employment of farm re- sources in micro and macro models of structural adjustment and produc- tion response. The model demonstrated the conditions under which farm operators could combine farm and nonfarm employment to maximize income, and explained the attractiveness of part-time farming as a permanent or a transitory organization of resource use. Given the farming situation and the new off-farm employment opportunity, the farmer can combine farm and off-farm work to maximize income at the point of tangency between the leisure-income transformation curve and his indifference function. This concept can also be applied to nonoperator family labor or total family labor to be allocated between farm and nonfarm employment. One of the interesting implications is that awareness of nonfarm employment opportunities reduces the "lumpiness" of the labor input on family farms. This reduces the technical underemployment of labor and im- proves the overall efficiency of resource use. 10 Several linear programming studies have attempted to include both farm and nonfarm activities in the analysis. The first pioneering study was done by Bishop (1956). He defined part-time farming: "...part-time farming involves the combination of farm and off-farm uses of labor resources, controlled by one family household or decision making unit.” A typical part-time farm from the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina was selected for his study. It was characterized as a small farm area with a high proportion of farm families engaged in off-farm, part-time work. A large proportion of the farm residents were employed in tex- tile mills. Linear programming was employed to derive optimal resource use for families on part-time farms. The effects of changes in prices of major commodities, in wage rates of off-farm employment, and in in- vestment capital were determined through sensitivity analysis. Nonfarm employment appeared as one of the enterprises in the optimal farm organ- ization. Most of the net revenue came from two enterprises: nonfarm employment and production of commercial eggs. An increase in wage rate generated additional nonfarm employment and effected the optimum use of resources and enterprise mix. Flanders (1977) surveyed 30 small farm families in the state of Maine. A part-time farmer was defined as having 100 days or more off- farm employment. Linear programming was the major analytical technique. Off-farm employment was particularly important when cropland was limited. It was one economically viable alternative to increase total family in— come in the optimum farm plan. Gardiner and Mysong (1975) studied part-time farmers who worked off their farm 100 days or more a year. Linear programming and budge- tary analysis were the main analytical techniques used. They concluded 11 that off-farm work with part-time farming was a very profitable alter- native. Operators deciding whether to take up off-farm employment were advised to budget alternatives to determine the economic feasibility of the off-farm job. Part-time farming can be a permanent or transitional activity. Hartman, et a1. (1974) used linear programming in an economic analysis of small farm production in the state of Missouri. The study revealed considerable underemployment on small farms, and nonfarm em- ployment was a viable alternative to reduce the problem. However, when more capital was made available, land and labor became constraints on part-time farms. A recent innovative study of Kada (1980) involved the comparative analysis of part-time farmers in the state of Wisconsin in the U.S. and in Shiga Prefecture, Japan. The results revealed substantially more off-farm work than normally reported in aggregate statistics. A cen- tral feature of the study was an analysis of farm level adjustments that are made in response to off-farm employment. In Wisconsin, farmers shift to less labor-intensive enterprises such as beef cattle or cash grain. In Japan, farmers reduce production of winter crops resulting in a monocropping pattern of rice. Much of the quantitative research on dual employment in develop- ment countries has concerned Asian countries. Birowa (1975) and Hart (1978) studied rice farming households in Java, Indonesia. Both studied the effect of wealth on time allocation and the type of farm and off- farm work of households. They found that off-farm work decreased with increases in farm size. When larger farmers worked off the farm, they tended to work at jobs that pay substantially higher renumeration than . 12 small farms. Hart argued that access to off-farm work was frequently associated with the socioeconomic status of the household, and that wealthier households had better opportunities to obtain higher paying jobs. 4 Several studies conducted by researchers in the Philippines rela- tive to farm household behavior were reported in a 1978 special issue of the Philippine Economic Journal. Evenson presented a theory of household resource allocation and Quizon reported on an application of the theory to a Study of time allocations of sampled farm households. Time allocation was divided into the three activity groups of market, home production and leisure time. Market time included income earning activities both on and off the farm. The regression model tested showed that the father's and mother's market time was positively influenced by wage rates and education. Smith and Meyer (1979) analyzed data collected from 188 farm house- holds in the province of Laguna, Philippines, to estimate off-farm labor supply response of small rice producing farms. Thirty-three percent of the households engaged in off-farm employment. Working husbands worked on the average just over 100 days, regardless of whether or not their wives worked off the farm. Working wives, however, worked more than twice as many days off the farm when their husbands did not. Children reported about 100 days of off-farm work. Nearly 40 percent of house- hold income was obtained from off-farm sources when both husband and wife had off-farm employment. Regression analysis was used to estimate off-farm labor supply response. The results showed that husbands were responsive to off-farm wage rates with the labor supply elasticity with respect to wage rate approaching four. Farm size had a negative effect 13 on off-farm work supporting the hypotheSis of a negative relationship between nonfarm income and farm Size. The number of young and old children had a positive effect on off-farm work. The earliest large-scale detailed research on time allocation and income generation in Thai farm households was conducted by the program of Rural Manpower-Utilization Studies which collected day by day infor- mation from farms in selected villages in Ayuthaya in the Central Re- gion, Khon Kaen and Kalasin in the Northeast, Chiang Mai in the North, Nakorn Sithammarat and Songkla in the South. The results were analyzed by Fuks and Vingerhoets (1972), Amyot (1976), Pongsapich (1976) and ‘Na Ayuthaya, et a1. (1979). Wide variations were found among the villages in farm and nonfarm enterprises and time allocated to the various enterprises. However, the proportion of household time spent on farm activities consistently averaged about 55 to 60 percent. Domes- tic work accounted for 15 to 20 percent, and the remaining time was de- voted to nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work. Attempts were made to estimate the amount of income earned per hour of work in various acti- vities. With the exception of brickmaking, nonfarm enterprises normal- ly generated less income per hour than farm enterprises. With the ex- ception of the Ayuthaya villages, income per hour of off-farm work was higher than the per hour income of farm activities. One of the first attempts to model villages in a multiple period framework was the study by Thody (1974) in the Chiang Mai Valley. He employed a poly-period linear programming model to derive the optimal multiple cropping systems for several representative farms. The result- ing systems produced the highest net income available to the farm under the resources (land, labor and capital) and other conditions (such as 14 crop, hired labor and loan limits) assumed. Some conditions were varied to examine their impact on multiple cropping systems, level of resource use, and income earned. The study, however, excluded nonfarm enter- prises in the analysis. Thus, there is no guarantee that the optimal cropping pattern would provide the highest income if nonfarm enterprises such as handicraft making and community activities were introduced in the model. Sektheera (1979) analyzed labor use in more detail in Ban-Pa-Mark, a village in Northern Thailand. The study analyzed labor use in typical noncrop farm production enterprises (such as community service, reli- gious functions, weddings, etc.). A poly-period linear programming model was employed to derive optimum cropping patterns in both rainy and dry seasons for representative farms and selected case households. Nonfarm activities were studied for their contribution to family income and their share of total labor utilization. The time spent in nonfarm and off-farm income producing activities was also analyzed. Some 52 ' percent of total labor utilization was spent on nonfarm activities with 48 percent on farm production. 0f the total time spent on nonfarm ac- tivities, 5 percent was devoted to exchange labor, 77 percent to non- farm income earning work and the remaining 18 percent to community ac- tivities and other nonincome producing activities. On-farm activities produced 70 percent of family gross income, whereas off-farm labor ac- tivities contributed 30 percent. Most of the studies mentioned above included only a single nonfarm activity in the model, rather than disaggregating to the several enter- prises typically found in the households. Such disaggregation requires detailed records on labor utilization of farm households. For this 15 study nonfarm activities are defined according to the different types of nonfarm employment opportunities found on representative farm house- holds. This approach is considered more appropriate for a country like Thailand where farm families engage in various types of nonfarm enter- prises (Sektheera, page 53, and Monkolchant). 1.4 Objectives of the Study The objectives of this study are as follows: (1) To examine the nature, extent and composition of farm, non- (2) farm and off-farm activities and their relationships in order to: (a) (b) (C) (d) identify the kinds and combinations of income generating activities in the rural study area; compare rainfed with irrigated farms with regard to cropping patterns, off-farm employment and nonfarm ac- tivities; describe seasonal profile of total hours worked each month by family members in alternative employment oppor- tunities; and assess the relative importance of different farm, non- farm enterprises and off-farm work with regard to labor absorption and income generation and to compare the im- portance of noncropping activities for farms of different sizes. To develop analytical models to represent the irrigated and rainfed farm household situations found in Khon Kaen villages. ' These models, then, can be used to analyze the optimum 16 allocation of the family labor and other household resource among farm and nonfarm enterprises, and off-farm work oppor- tunities consistent with the constraints of initial farm and family resources, including family subsistence constraints. (3) To use the models developed to evaluate the effect of alter- native nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportunities, and wage change on enterprise combinations, employment and income earned. (4) To evaluate the possible effect of alternative farm enter- prises, especially during the dry season, on enterprise com- binations, employment, resource use and income earned. (5) To propose possible policies and programs to assist in im- proved household income and to stimulate employment of members of farm household in farm and nonfarm enterprise and off-farm works. 1.5 Methodology 1.5.1 Data Collection Procedure for the Study Area 1.5.1.1 Study Area Data used in this thesis were obtained from the Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project in Thailand (AID Project No. 443-030b, 1979) and from a supplemental survey conducted in the same study sites as the Project's. Thus, the data collection procedures for this thesis corresponds to those followed by the Project and are herein summarized 17 from ROFEAP Research Paper No. 3, namely Rural Off-Farm Employment Survey (Mead and Meyer, 1981) as they pertain to the Northeast Region. Northeast Thailand was selected as one of the regions for study because of the RTG's and USAID's interest in developing this region. The region is important not only as to national area with 42.4 percent of the total agricultural land and 43.3 percent of the nation's agri- cultural population [RTG, 1979], but also because it is a sensitive area with respect to political instability and national security. The region accounts for 35.9 percent of the total income, but per capita income is below the national average. It is the poorest region of the country and has some of the most serious employment problems. The re- gion is also affected by war among Thailand's neighboring countries. This fact has been recognized and stated in the national social and economic development plan [NEDB, 1978], and thus, RTG pays special at— tention to the Northeast Region through research support and heavy in- vestment in various development projects. Within the Northeast Region, Khon Kaen, along with Roi Et Province, were chosen as the study areas using the following criteria: (1) crop- ping pattern and primary nonfarm enterprise; (2) consideration of its previous studies in order to be able to do a comparative analysis which could provide insights into changes in the rural economy over time; (3) the ease of access to the Project's local research base; and (5) the interest of RTG, USAID and other donor agencies. There was empiri- cal evidence that in Khon Kaen, various nonfarm enterprises were impor- tant for many farm households. According to a previous economic survey in this area [Fuh and Vingerhoets, 1971; Pongsapich, 1976], a large proportion of total farm households had been involved in various kinds 18 of part-time and nonfarm work such as handicrafts (e.g., basket, mat- making, silk weaving), carpentry and other services. Nonfarm income, as a proportion, represented about 30 percent of total family income. The time reported in farm cottage industry and other off-farm work re- presented 32 to 39 percent of total work time. The criteria mentioned above were also used to select districts (ampurs) the administrative unit within province (Table 1.1). Four districts in Khon Kaen, namely, Muang, Ban Phai, Chonnabot and Nam Phong were chosen. 1.5.1.2 Sampling Procedure For lack of detailed village information a Phase I survey was con- ducted to provide preliminary information of farm and nonfarm activities in the study areas. This survey was conducted in three stages. The first stage involved the collection of background information about economic activity, farm and nonfarm, in all of the villages of the dis- tricts selected for study. This information was obtained from inter- views with a variety of local government officials, community develop- ment officers, agricultural extension workers, and others. This in turn led to the second stage, a purposive selection of villages for follow-up work. Interviews were held with village headmen who are the elected administrative officers of the villages. Village headmen usual- ly keep record of the number of the households and the population of their villages, and are very knowledgeable about the village and its dwellers. In Khon Kaen, there were 24 headmen interviewed between Oc- tober 18 and October 28, 1979 from which villages were selected for the third and final stage in the Phase I survey. Again, purposive rather 19 than random selection procedures were used to choose the villages for further study. In general, at least two villages were chosen with re- ported production of each of major nonfarm enterprises found in the headmen interviews. In the selection of these villages, attention was also paid to the agricultural production characteristics of the village (e.g., availability of water, farm size, cropping patterns, etc.) the degree of isolation of the village and its size. Finally, on the basis of all these considerations, the sample of 10 villages in Khon Kaen was chosen for house-by-house enumeration in the Phase I survey. The enu- meration reached a random sample of all households in the village. The sampling farm was the household list obtained from each village headman. The sampling percentages ranged from 20 to 50 percent, depending on the heterogeneity of the households in the village, as reported in the head- men interview. Based on information in the Phase I survey, 9 out of 10 villages in the Phase I survey of Khon Kaen study area were purposively chosen for the Phase II survey. The villages include: three villages in the Amphur Muang (village Kok Nang Nqarm, Nong Ta Kai, and Ban Bed), one village in Amphur Ban Phai (Kok Sam Ran), two villages in Amphur Chonnabot (Don Kar and Ma Khambia) and three in Amphur Nam Phong (Kok Soong, Wang Toa and Ta Kaserm). Table 1.1 depicts a list of these vil- lages. The project Phase II survey was designed to collect detailed information in order to describe the patterns of labor and land use, of gross and net income earned, and the sources and uses of finance among the diverse farm and nonfarm enterprises within the village house- hold, over the course of one year. 20 _ep ape «N mmmp _auop RN om «mm cam 5mm xox 4 was; cum 4_ _e yam sex a: m mp em Lax coo N ponmccosu op Fm oc mob new: mm Pm esp Egon ax we om cs amp acoom xox m acozg Emz mp so mom was cam ON mo oFN Pay a» acoz -- mm Nap mesa: cam up me new semmz memz gag Np mama: mFaEmm cozmp>emucm nmzmw>gmucfi .mmmppm> .mEmz mamppw> Agasgsoea coax gong cw >m>e=m HH omega ucm H omega F.” mpnmh mmm_PP> 21 Once the villages had been chosen, the sample of farm households were consequently chosen through the sample farm provided from Phase I survey using a stratified random sampling procedure. The stratification was based on the existence or nonexistence of a nonfarm enterprise as reported in the Phase I survey. The sampling percentage was the same within each of the two strata in any one village, but varied from vil- lage to village, depending on: (1) the number of farm households which one or two enumerator can handle as the enumerators were to be chosen from within the village; (2) the diversity of the village in terms of all economic activities, the more diverse the village was, the larger the sample size should be; and (3) the expectation of a drop out rate among households i.e. the starting sample size was set larger than the longer-run target figure. Finally, 141 farm households were obtained as the desired sample in the Khon Kaen study areas. Table 1.1 provides a listing of the villages and number of sample households chosen for the study. 1.5.1.3 Data The data used in this thesis were obtained from two major surveys, the project Phase 11 survey mentioned above and a supplemental survey conducted by this researcher. The Phase II survey provided "stock data" such as general characteristics of farm households and farm in- ventory (land, buildings, tools, livestock and poultry and initial cash on hand. The "flow data" collected throughout the year included farm and nonfarm output, labor utilization patterns of both farm and nonfarm enterprises, family income and monthly household expenditure. This 22 information was used to provide insight into the village households for developing the representative models which could be used to analyze the situations found in the villages. Since the project Phase II survey was inadequate to provide the detailed information needed for this farm modelling analysis, a supple- mental survey was designed to collect data which included the input- output coefficients, labor use with respect to each activity and enter- prise of farm and nonfarm, cost and return of each farm and nonfarm enterprises, wage rates, labor supply and demand at alternative wage rate, different technology used in crop production etc. These data were obtained by interviewing at least 5 households for each enterprise. It should be mentioned here that the time spent on various supple— mentary farming enterprise and activities such as poultry, pigs and the production of fruit and vegetables produced solely for home consumption and various nonincome generating activities e.g. household domestic chores, religious, cultural and social activities, were also collected in order to compute the potential hours available by family member in income generating activities found in the villages. Furthermore, the data obtained from both surveys were validated by checking and comparing with another previous farm household research in the Northeast. 1.5.2 Procedure To fulfill the objectives as mentioned above, the analysis will be pursued in the following manner. To achieve the first objective, a descriptive analysis will be done using basic statistical technique such as cross tabulation, simple averages, frequencies, and percentages for each of the different farm size groups. This descriptive analysis 23 will also guide in the specification of representative farm households for subsequent analysis in using a poly-linear programming model to meet the rest of the objectives. The models will be developed for re- presentative farm households within different farm size groups (small, medium and large farm size) of the rainfed and irrigated agriculture situations in Khon Kaen Province (see the details of the model structure in Chapter 4). Finally, simulation analysis will be conducted with some assumed situations varying from the basic models and results will be compared to those from the basic models in order to achieve the fourth and fifth objectives. More specifically, the following alternatives will be analyzed and compared to the basic model to investigate their impact on enterprise combinations, family labor use, income from nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportunities, and alternative crop enter- ‘prises during the dry season: (1) no off-farm employment opportunity; (2) more off-farm employment opportunities; (3) change in wage of off- farm work (4) change in nonfarm enterprise opportunities; (5) change in rice yield: and (6) fully irrigation water supply in the dry season with introducing new alternative crop. 1.6 Organization of the Study The next chapter is devoted to the description of the study area in terms of its physical and general characteristics in order to pro- vide background of the Northeast Region, and Khon Kaen Province as well as the survey villages. Then, in Chapter 3 the general characteristics of the sample households including their resource endowment and utiliza- tion of these resources on farm, nonfarm and off-farm activities by farm size groups will be presented. These characteristics will help 24 specify the representative situations found in the villages for the modelling work to follow. The details of the analytical model are dis- cussed in Chapter 4, with emphasis on the objective function, activities, constraints and assumptions. Chapters 5 and 6 present the basic opti- mum farm organization and family labor use for better farm and nonfarm activities of rainfed and irrigated farms. Then, the simulation analy- sis with various assumed conditions to assess the impact of nonfarm enterprise and off-farm work opportunities will be presented and dis- cussed in Chapter 7. Finally, Chapter 8 provides a summary of findings and implications drawn from programming and simulation analysis. CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA This chapter consists of three main sections. The first two sec- tions give the general background information of Northeast Thailand and Khon Kaen Province. The last section describes the characteristics of the selected villages. 2.1 Northeast Thailand Geographically, the Northeastern Region is a high plateau bounded by the Mekong River in the North and East and Dong Praya Yen Mountain in the West. It contains the large Korat plateau rising about a thousand feet above the central plain and sloping down toward the Mekong River. Its area covers 170,226 square kilometers or about one-third of the country. Also its people represent nearly the same proportion of the total population [RTG, 1978]. The value of gross products produced during 1973-1977 indicates that the Northeast Region's share of the national gross domestic product have remained at 15 percent. Per capita income of the Northeast Region is about 3,500 baht] [NESDB, 1977] or about 29 percent of the Central Region excluding Bangkok, 42 percent of the Southern Region and 67 percent of the Northern Region (Bangkok of Thailand, 1977). This is the lowest in the nation, a level less than half of the national average (8,652). The economic structure of the region is dominated by agri- culture with its share of the gross national product averaging 16 1One U.S. Dollar = approximately 20 baht. 25 26 N K H 0 N K A a N } Udonthlnl no wank-u , g '1' ‘ \ iis Shampoo rnunn. 12,47}; :2 u“ E : h _ I / i, - /' ’ m: / s s \\ Nah-suntan Chainphum o ' Nakorntllchuima i Burinm l l : 1.800.010 1 ' Sen e To Bangkok % Study A re a 0 District Office Dimiu Boundary Highway M 31““! 27 percent [Sriswasdilek, 1980]. Regarding the agriculture sector, main crops of the Northeast are rice, and some upland crops such as cassava and kenaf. At least 3 million rai2 of farmland is under rice cultivation [RTG, 1980]. Manufacturing plays a minor role in the economy of the Northeast. Most of the industrial establishments produce primary goods based on local agricultural resources. About 75-85 percent of total firms in this area are small rice mills scattered in the villages through- out the area. These small rice mills operate for only a few hours a day mostly to serve the local consumption needs. Other types of manufactur- ing activities for this region are related to cassava products (chips, pellets and flour), kenaf products (bale and gunny bag), sugarcane pro- ducts, wood based products, construction materials, engine repairs and maintenance workshops, foundries, etc. [ESCAP, 1979]. Percentage of rice mills among the manufacturing units in the Northeast is relatively high, 86.5 percent, which indicates that the economy of the region mainly depends upon rice production. According to the Labor Force Survey [N50, 1976] about 28 percent of total population of the region were categorized as labor force of which only 1.1 percent were unemployed. The climate of Northeast Thailand is tropical and governed by the Southwest and Northeast monsoons. The average annual rainfall ranges from 1,100 millimeters in the Western provinces to over 1,600 millimeters in the Eastern provinces. Average temperatures range between 20°C. in January and 30°C. in April. The relative humidity ranges from 75 to 85 percent in the rainy season and from 55 to 70 percent in the dry season. 2One rai = 0.16 hectare. 28 Evaporation is on the order of 1,800 to 2,000 millimeters [Sriswasdilek, 1980]. 2.2 Khon Kaen Khon Kaen is one of the 16 provinces of the Northeast. It is located between 16-17°N and 102-103°E. Khon Kaen occupies 13,404 square kilometers or approximately 11.4 million rai which is 7.8 percent of the Northeast total area. Khon Kaen is administratively divided into 18 districts, 128 subdistricts and 1,604 villages [Khon Kaen Provincial Office, 1978]. 2.2.1 Physical Features 2.2.1.1 Soil Type Soil types of the area, which are parts of the Quaternary sedi- mentary deposits consists of sands, clays, gravels of the river valleys together with residual "laterites" deposits of the plains. In general, soil in Khon Kaen is mostly sandy and strongly red throughout due to the oxide strain. The moisture holding capacity and the fertility of this soil are quite low. In the northern part of the Province soil quality in terms of fertility and moisture holding capacity is better. Soil in the southern part is salty and not suitable for cultivation. 2.2.1.2 Climate Climatological data for Khon Kaen during the period of 1957-1975 are presented in Table 2.1. The climate of this Province is seasonal in nature. Beginning with the month of April, the precipitation increases steadily as the wet season progresses until the maximum monthly rainfall is reached, which normally occurs in September. This is accompanied 29 Table 2.1 Climatological Data for Khon Kaen During the Period of 1951-1975 Temperature Humidity Rainfall Evaporation Month (0C.) (%) (mm) (mm) January 23.2 64 8.9 168.1 February 25.9 62 18.0 174.2 March 28.7 61 37.2 218.0 April 30.3 64 61.6 231.5 May 29.5 72 165.4 210.9 June 28.7 76 179.6 169.6 July 28.2 77 156.3 176.4 August 27.7 80 186.8 159.9 September 27.2 82 266.0 144.3 October 26.7 80 89.4 163.7 November 25.1 70 15.9 164.8 December 23.2 66 2.7 167.6 Year 27.0 71 1,187.8 2,149.0 Source: Climatological Data of Thailand, 25 year period (1951-1975) (Meteorological Department, 1977). 30 with a slight rise in humidity and a simultaneous decrease in tempera- ture and radiation. The total rainfall per year is 1,188 millimeters. The average number of rainy days per year during the period of 1972 to 1976 was 138 with 118 days during the rainy season and the other 20 days spread throughout the rest of the year [Khon Kaen Provincial Office, 1978]. The temperature falls to a minimum in December or January with the average temperature of 23°C. then rises rapidly at first and then more gradually until it reaches a maximum in April (3o.3°c.). During this period, the weather is hot and dry moderated slightly by light breezes, cool nights and very occasional light showers. The seasonal variation of evaporation is regular in transition from minimum values in September—October to maximum values in March-April. The average evapora- tion per year is 2,149 millimeters. 2.2.2 Demographic Features In 1979, the total population in Khon Kaen was 1,290,143 of which approximately 80 percent were farmers. It was composed of 648,677 (50.3 percent) males and 641,736 (49.7 percent) females. The population den- sity was approximately 93 persons per square kilometer. During 1971 to 1979 the population growth rate was 1.6 percent per year which was rela- tively low compared with other provinces in the region. In 1975, ap- proximately 50 percent of the total population was in the working age group, increasing to about 51 percent in 1979 [Khon Kaen Provincial Office, 1980]. 2.2.3 Irrigation There are two important rivers running through Khon Kaen Province, namely Nam Chi and Nam Phong. In addition, there are 25 small natural 31 water resources scattered throughout the province with a water surface area not less than 0.64 square kilometers. The most important water resource development in Khon Kaen is Ubolratana Reservoir. It is located approximately 50 kilometers northwest from the city of Khon Kaen. Its storage capacity is 2,550 million cubic meters. Approximately 40 kilo- meters downstream from the reservoir is a diversion dam called Nong Wai. This dam was constructed to regulate the irrigation flow from the Ubolratana Reservoir in the Nam Phong Irrigation Project area. This project covered an area of 117,000 rai fbr the whole Northeast Region, but only 32,000 rai of Khon Kaen was irrigated [RTG, 1978]. Also, there are seven tank (small reservoir) irrigation projects in this area. These seven projects served an area of 16,150 rai [Royal Irrigation Department- RID, 1976]. Four other small reservoirs also existed in the province intended for the storage of water for domestic consumption only. Their storage capacity was approximately 2.09 million cubic meters. Much of the agricultural production depends on rainfall. Less than 10 percent of total cultivated land of the province is fully irrigated in the wet season and partially irrigated in the dry season. Rainfed farming, therefore, is common and extends throughout the province. Nevertheless, the rainfall is usually adequate to meet crop water requirements during five months of the year [A.I.T., 1978]. However, the rainfall is very erratic, and the water holding capacity of most Khon Kaen soils is low. Part of the rainfall is thus lost to runoff from heavy rains and deep percolation from the lightsoils. Thus, intermittent drought periods make cropping risky and yield erratic. 32 2.2.4 Transportation and Communication Systems Transportation networks in Khon Kaen may be roughly separated into intra-provincial and inter-provincial routes. Within Khon Kaen there are highways and provincial roads of asphalt that connect the different provincial districts and other provinces in the Northeast. Village roads are also available to almost all villages, although some of the roads are poor and in the rainy season cannot be used except by carts, horses and motorcycles. During the dry seasons, buses, minibuses and motorcycles are modes of transport between districts. There is also a railway and good highway connecting Khon Kaen with Bangkok and other provinces. These good transportation networks help shipping agricultural products and other goods from other provinces through Khon Kaen to Bangkok as well as from Bangkok through Khon Kaen to other provinces. Also, transport by air is provided by Thai Airways. 2.2.5 Economic Aspect The economic activity of Khon Kaen is dominated by agriculture. The share of agriculture in the provincial gross domestic product (GDP) has increased from 31.8 percent in 1973 to 36.2 percent in 1977. Khon Kaen's GDP has expanded remarkably as seen through its increased share in gross regional product (GRP) from 9.6 percent in 1973 to 10.5 percent in 1977. In 1977, its GDP was 3,676 million bahts, with 1,330 million bahts coming from agriculture [ESCAP, 1978]. Due to the rolling topography, the land use under cultivation in Khon Kaen Province may be classified into three types: upland (high terrace); upper (middle-terrace); and low land (low terrace) areas. The upland and upper (middle-terrace) are more suitable for upland crops than for rice [Khon Kaen University, 1976]. But, in Khon Kaen, rice is 33 normally started on the lower fields as soon as they are wet enough for transplanting and proceeds to higher elevations as the fields become saturated. For Khon Kaen farmers, as well as Northeast farmers, rice is their main staple food and always receives first consideration. In up- land areas, kenaf and cassava and the recently introduced sugarcane are the main crops which occupy most of the area. In 1980, the area planted to rice was 1.9 million rais. Kenaf was planted on 139,610 rais while cassava occupied 369,681 rais [Khon Kaen Provincial Office, 1981]. Corn, tobacco and sugarcane have been recently introduced, but production levels have not picked up yet. Khon Kaen's farmers, as well as other Northeast farmers, are predominately rice growers and will diversify agricultural production only if their sub- sistence is assured. Even in the case of rice varieties grown, although regular rice fetches higher in price, in a risk aversion posture the Northeasterner will grow glutinous rice, despite the price differential, because he will still have his preferred food to eat if the crop is small. In summary, the most important crops grown in Khon Kaen area are rice, and some upland crops such as kenaf and cassava. Agricultural pro— duction is supplemented by livestock raising, especially cattle and buffalo, the former fin~meat and the latter primarily for draft animals. Increases in livestock production are usually limited by feed shortages, especially in the late dry season and very late in the rainy season when land is occupied with crop production. Pig raising is conducted primar- ily on a small scale basis, with feed coming from rice by-products. There are few commercial poultry flocks in the region, but almost every village household has a few chickens or ducks providing both food and 34 some cash income. In addition to farming, various nonfarm activities bring supplementary income. These include' Sericulture and silk weaving, bamboo product making, itinerant trade, etc. Rice mills are the pre- dominate form of manufacturing in Khon Kaen. Most of them are small and diesel powered and do custom grinding. However, in the irrigated parts of the province, where rice is grown for the market, larger mills are fairly common. Most of these larger mills do custom grinding and also serve as local collection points for rice exporters located in Bangkok. The charge for the service by the small rice mills is in the form of rice bran, the by-product, which they keep. This rice bran is used for animal feed. Cassava and sugarcane mills, including the recently built paper pulp mill are other important processing industries in this province. There are still other secondary, light industries and commercial estab- lishments which provide employment opportunities and which contribute toward the local economy. Such establishments include construction material, engine repairs and maintenance work shops, foundries, etc. 2.3 Village Characteristics Considering the characteristics of the villages, they may be grouped into three main situations. 2.3.1 Irrigated or intensive farming in which two craps are normally cultivated each year, some supplemental water is available in the dry season, and besides the traditional land preparation (buffalo plowing), a number of households use mechanized plowing with owned or rented two-wheel tractors. Few nonfarm enterprises of cotton weaving, basket and mat making are undertaken by most households. This is the typical situation represented by Kok Nangrarm and Ta Karserm. 35 2.3.2 Upland crop farming with wet season rice production and large amounts of upland cropping of cassava, kenaf and sugarcane. These vil- lages have some nonfarm enterprises such as mat making and cotton weav- ing. Kok Sam Ran and Kok Soong represent this type of situation. 2.3.3 Rainfed farming with only wet season rice production, but with several nonfarm bamboo products, and numbers of several households are engaged in off-farm jobs. This is the type of situation found in most of the remaining Khon Kaen villages. However, only two situations, irrigated and rainfed farming, are included in this dissertation. Since, the rainfed agriculture situation is predominant in Khon Kaen and throughout the Northeast Region. In the case of irrigated farming, which is also chosen, even it is not the major type of farming found in Khon Kaen, because it is becoming of interest due to the strong support of the RTG for irrigation projects in the North- east as a means to help develop this rural area. Besides, study of the excluded upland crop farming situation is being undertaken by another graduate student [see Apibunyopas, J., 1981]. 2.3.4 Amphur Muang 2.3.4.1 Kok Nang Ngarm Kok Nang Ngarm is a relatively large irrigated village with 243 households located 15 kilometers north of Khon Kaen. Forty eight house- holds were included in the Phase 1 survey. These households had 220 working age persons of which 148 worked in agriculture, 24 in nonagri- cultural activities and 43 worked outside the village. 36 Rice is the main crop and can be grown twice a year due to the village's good irrigation water supply from the Nam Pong Irrigation Project. San Pa Tong variety, a long maturing glutinous rice variety, is commonly grown by farmers in the wet season. Dry season rice vari- eties are R07 and Mali. Some farm households also grow vegetables in the dry season. Some of the village land was subject to reconsideration during the year of this study, but all of the specific households drawn in the sample were cultivating their land. Nonfarm enterprises include cotton weaving and some mat and basket making. This village is one of the two irrigated villages selected to provide the data base for the linear programming analysis. 2.3.4.2 Nong Ta Kai Nong Ta Kai is located 20 kilometers west of Khon Kaen. It had 200 households and 63 were interviewed. They had 312 working persons of which 223 reported work in agricultural activities, 127 in nonagri- cultural activities and 52 worked outside the village. In this rainfed village, agriculture is of relatively low intensity with one crop season per year. The main wet season crop is rice. San Pa Tong, a long maturing glutinous rice variety, and Dang, a middle maturing nonglutinous rice variety, are commonly grown in the rainy season fbr home consumption. Most farmers use baffalo and oxen for land cultivation. There are a relatively large number of households involved in non- farm enterprises such as sticky rice container making, sericulture and silk weaving and off-farm work in town. This is the first of the three rainfed villages selected to provide the data base for the linear programming analysis. 37 2.3.4.3 Ban Ped Ban Ped is located 5 kilometers west of Khon Kaen. It reported 206 households and 64 were interviewed. They had 310 working persons, 219 in agriculture, 60 in nonagricultural activities and 82 working outside the village. This rainfed village is very similar to Nong Ta Kai except for non- farm enterprises. The village's nonfarm activities involve seri- culture, silk weaving, mat making and large amounts of off-farm work. This is the second of the three rainfed villages selected to provide the data base for the linear programming analysis. 2.3.5 Ban Pai District Kok Sam Ran Village is located just off the highway from Khon Kaen to Ban Pai, about 42 kilometers south of Khon Kaen and 19 kilometers north of Ban Pai. It is a large village, with 232 households and 50 were interviewed. They reported 222 working age persons, of which 211 reported work in agriculture, 101 in nonagriculture and only 3 work outside the village. The village agriculture relies largely on rainfall. However, it can get access to water from a nearby canal if the local irrigation agency provides the pump. It may be classified as an upland village with a farming system excluded from the focus of this study. The upland crops of kenaf and cassava are grown by many farmers. A big pond is located close to the village so it has a comparative advan— tage in producing kenaf for retting and processing into fiber. The long maturing glutinous rice variety, Ban Pai, is commonly grown in the wet season by farmers for home consumption. 38 The village's main nonfarm enterprises are mat making and cotton weaving, while there are very few households engaging in off-farm work. 2.3.6 Chonnabot District The two small Chonnabot villages are adjacent to each other about 6 kilometers south of the Amphur Chonnabot. Together they have 89 house- holds. Interviews were conducted in a total of 32 households with 152 persons reported of working age, of which 129 worked in agriculture, 52 in nonagricultural activities and 22 worked outside the village. The main agricultural activity is one crop of rice per year in the wes season, as the village relies heavily on rainfall. Kam Pai, native variety of long-maturing glutinous rice, and Dang, a middle-maturing nonglutinous rice, are largely grown in the village. All farm households are involved in silk weaving either as their own weaving or as subcon- tractors to firms located in nearby towns. A sample of nine households was drawn from these two villages to further represent rainfed agriculture. This is the third of three vil- lage samples selected for linear programming analysis. 2.3.7 Nam Pong District 2.3.7.1 Kok Soong Kok Soong is located 40 kilometers northeast of Khon Kaen and 5 kilometers north of Amphur Nam Pong. It reported 129 households and 40 were interviewed. They had 186 working age persons; 107 working in agriculture, 93 in nonagricultural activities and 40 outside the village. Classified as an upland village, sugarcane is the most important crop in the village. It is located close to a sugarcane refinery plant. 39 Some farmers grow cassava. Besides upland cropping, farmers also plant rice, especially glutinous rice for their home consumption. There are two or three native varieties of long-maturing rice (e.g., San Pa Tong, Man Ped, Luang Boon Ma) and middle-maturing rice (e.g., Khao Klang, Khao Yai), commonly grown in the village. Most cr0ps are rainfed. It may have a high potential for kenaf production because of the new kenaf pulp plant built in the Nam Pong District. This village grew kenaf before switching to sugarcane and cassava. Mat making is the major nonfarm enterprise in the village. The main source of off-farm work is as paid laborers in the sugarcane refinery plant, especially during its operation period of October to February. 2.3.7.2 Wang Toa Wang Toa is a small village located 45 kilometers northeast of Khon Kaen and 3 kilometers south of Nam Pong. Twenty-one of the 38 households were interviewed. They reported 68 working age persons with 57 working in agriculture, 55 in nonagriculture and 22 outside the village. The most important enterprise of this village is pottery production instead of farming. Most households have had long experiences in making pottery. Their ancestors migrated from Dan Kwein District of Korat Province, which is well-known for pottery making in the Northeast, to Wang Toa, which has good soil for pottery making. This village was excluded from the linear programming analysis because of its highly specialized nonfarm activities and its limited farming. 40 2.3.7.3 Ta Kaserm Ta Kaserm is a large village of 183 households located 60 kilometers northeast of Khon Kaen and 16 kilometers south of Nam Pong. Sixty-one households were interviewed and they reported 343 working age persons, with 230 working in agriculture, 105 in nonagricultural activities and 43 working outside the village. This irrigated village has a relatively good water supply and most farmers normally grow two crops a year. Rice is the major crap grown in both wet and dry seasons. But not more than half of the farmers' paddy land can be cultivated to grow short-maturing rice due to a 50 percent reduction in irrigation water supply available from the Nam Phong ir- rigation project in the dry season. Farmers tend to grow only non- glutinous for sale in the dry season unless wet season glutinous rice production is insufficient for total household consumption. In this case, they also grow glutinous rice in the wet season. Long maturing varieties of glutinous and nonglutinous rice, namely San Pa Tong and Mae Loop, respectively, are commonly grown in the wet season, while the short-maturing variety of nonglutinous rice, R07; ‘is largely grown in the dry season. Buffalos and oxen are normally used for plowing, but two-wheel tractors are being used by some farmers in recent years. There are relatively few nonfarm enterprises. Cotton weaving and mat making is done by some households during the dry season. Mat and basket making are also done by some households in both wet and dry seasons. The mainten- ance of the irrigation canal can provide occasional employment to vil- lagers. 41 This is the second of the two irrigated villages selected to pro- vide a data base for the linear programming analysis. The descriptive analysis presented in the following is based on the two irrigated and three rainfed villages identified above. However, four households in Ban Ped, two households in the Chonnabot villages and one household in Kok Sam Ran were excluded from further analysis because in the year of study they were cultivating no farmland. CHAPTER 3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS General characteristics of North Eastern Thailand and survey vil- lages were presented in the previous chapter to give an overview of the main features of the study area. This information helps us to under- stand the environmental constraints which should be kept in mind as models are developed for in the villages under study. This chapter is devoted to the characteristics of farm households in both rainfed and irrigated villages in order to identify those fea- tures which should be taken into account for the programming analysis to be done in the next chapter. As a reminder, the information reported in this chapter is based on the Phase II survey results and on a supplemental survey of selected households conducted by this researcher. The irrigated village data are from 17 households in Kok Nang Ngarm (1 household was excluded) and 21 households in Ta Kaserm. For the rainfed area all 20 households of N09 Ta Kai, 12 out of 16 households in Ban Fed and 7 out of 9 households in Don Kar were used for a total of 39 households. The excluded house- holds did not cultivate land in the year of this study. All sections of this chapter are based on the Phase 11 survey ex- cept for Section 3.3 (non-farm enterprises). 3.1 Land and Farm Size Land is one of the major resources for the farm households. The amount of land operated, the fertility and the kinds of an amount of 42 43 crops grown on it will, to a great extent, determine the level of farm household income, family labor utilization, household's participation in nonfarm activities and off-farm work. Thus, the aspects of land to be discussed in this section includes the land area operated by both rainfed and irrigated farm households, the terminology of farm size and its disaggregation, including land tenure, and the matter of land frag- mentation. 3.1.1 Land Holding and Farm Size The land area operated by individual farm households ranged from 5 rai to 52 rai with a mean of 19.88 rai in the sample rainfed villages, and ranged from 3.0 rai to 45.8 rai with a mean of 17.26 rai in the sample irrigated villages (Table 3.1). About 30 percent of the total households operated less than 10 rai of land in both rainfed and irri- gated areas. The next larger group that accounts for about 20 percent of the total households was in the land size class of over 30 rai for the rainfed farm and of 15.0 to 19.99 rai for the irrigated farms. To meet the objectives stated in the previous chapter, there is a need to classify the farm population according to farm size. For this, the farm households were arrayed according to the amount of their land area devoted to rainy season crops. Those which fall in the lowest quartile of this array were defined as "small farms." Those which fall in the highest quartile were defined "large" and the "medium" farms those which fall in the middle half of the array. Using these defini- tions, for the rainfed farm households there were 10 small farms rang- ing from 5.0 to 8.7 and with a mean of 6.33 rais of land area. The 19 medium farms ranged from 8.8 to 25.4 rais with a mean of 17.77 rais, 44 .cowue>Pup:u cone: veep c: we; own» mommprv> cmpmmweew wna cw uposmmao; P can momeppw> omecwme ms» c? mupozmmzo; o mcwuaPuxmt o.oe_ eN.~F .em e.oo_ mm.ep tam emeee>< e _eeee N.m. mm.nm m m.mp em.Pe u .85 use 0.0m 8.“ mm.m~ m N.NF Nm.mm e mm.m~ - o.m~ N.mp FF.mN m m.e~ em._m m mm.¢~ - o.o~ —.~N op.mp m N.NP oe.np o mm.mp..o.m_ m.op mm.Fp e m.m om.mp m mm.¢p - o.op o.m~ NF.N m m.mm em.o Np mm.m - o.m m.op um.m e - - - o.m cmsu mme mu—ogmmzo: Avmgv mvpocmmzo: muponwmzox APmLV mu—ogmmzo: Armev mo mmmcm>< we .02 mo womem>< ea .02 mmeFu m~mm .02 “gauge; .02 ucmoema seem umpmmweefi seem emecmem mcFozmmzoz >5 umpmemao mme< one; to cowuznwepmmo p.m mpnmh 45 and the 10 large farms ranged from 28.0 to 52.0 rai with a mean of 37.46 rais (Table 3.2). For the irrigated farm households, there were 10 small farms ranging from 3.0 to 7.2 rais with a mean of 5.39 rais. The 18 medium farms ranged from 8.0 to 23.8 rai with a mean of 15.45 rais and the 10 large farms ranged from 24.0 to 45.8 with a mean of 32.36 rais. 3.1.2 Land Tenure Table 3.2 also summarizes the types of land ownership of rainfed and irrigated farm households. It can be seen that the level of tenan- cy was very low for both rainfed and irrigated farm households. Only 3 or 7.5 percent of the sample rainfed farm households operated as a full tenant, and there were only 3 of the total irrigated farm house- holds reported to be partially tenant. Most of the rental agreements found on the sample households were with relatives and were commonly paid in kind in terms of a crop-share arrangement. Normally, the crop- share agreement is about 40 percent of the harvested crop. 3.1.3 Land Fragmentation The matter of land fragmentation, that is the location and number of separate land parcels operated by a family, may, to some extent, en- ter into the decision of what individual crops will be grown [Rapeepun, 1979]. Furthermore, farms with scattered fields may impede the intro- duction of a new irrigation system to that area, since the water supply to one field must pass through several other fields, which in turn re- quires much more time to drain and distribute the water supply [Chalamwong and Onchan, 1981]. 46 m.u m - - F.~m mm mm.s_ o.oop mm mane; ~P< m.~ P - - n.m~ m om.~m m.m~ op mace; m.m N - - p.~e mp me.mp v.5e mp anumz - - - - m.o~ op mm.m m.mm op Ppesm "mmmpu m~wm new magma cmuemweeH o.m N m.~ m c.mw em mw.m_ o.oop mm mane; ~F< m.~ P m.~ _ e.o~ m ee.~m e.m~ op eaten m.~ _ m.~ _ m.m¢ up mu.- m.me mp Earemz - - m.~ P F.mN m mm.m o.m~ op Fpesm "mmepu «New can magma coecwem Anpogmmzo; ucmogme .oz “amoeba. .oz ucmueme .oz “Mu“ “smegma .oz EmpH “com m=~e_czo .. apeo nuance» zpco nwsmgoczo. umue>mppzu weposmmzo: .awgmgoczo,vcm4 Peace mesa; umpmmwecH ecu ummcwmm mo maaoew mNPm seem an amsmemczo use; N.m epoch 47 The number of noncontiguous fields and area per field operated by rainfed and irrigated farmers are shown on the basis of farm size in Table 3.3 and 3.4 respectively. As expected, the larger the farm size, the more noncontiguous fields there are. For instance, the small farm for both rainfed and irrigated farms averaged 1.7 fields per household, while those in the large farm size category averaged about 3.4 fields and 2.9 fields per household for rainfed and irrigated farms respective- ly. Also, the size of field in the large farm size category for both rainfed and irrigated farms averaged about twice the size of the average field size for the smallest farms. However, even though land fragmentation can have a bearing on crop- ping patterns, this feature will be ignored in the modelling work to follow because: (1) seventy percent of the sample households in both rainfed and irrigated farms have only 1 or 2 fields; (2) all fields are not very far away from the farmers' dwelling and can be reached by walk- ing; (3) all fields within the survey villages in both irrigated and rainfed areas are very similar with regard to fertility, and rainfed areas are very similar with regard to fertility, water availability, and other such management considerations; and (4) available data omits any reference to farming activities by field. 3.1.4 Land Use Table 3.5 indicates that most of the land operated by rainfed and irrigated farmers was used for growing glutinous and nonglutinous rice. Glutinous rice, the staple food for pe0ple in the Northeast, was mainly grown for family consumption but if there is excess, it will be sold on the market. 48 .uo_ammao; acmeapoxmt mnponmmaoz FF< mmepu mNFm Seem cm.o mm.o pop; mEo=\wmm Nm.e Nn.m upwwu\wwm N.N m.p upozwmzoz\mupmwu o.oop mm o.oop op o.oo~ m— o.oop op pouch m.N F o.op F - - A a m 8.8 m c.o~ p m.o~ N - m m.o~ c c.0N N m.op N - v o.mN o— o.om m o.pm m o.o~ F m m.mm up 0.9m m m.Fm m o.om m N m.m_ n - m.mp m o.o¢ e P “.ozv A.ozv A.ozv A.ozv :ompznwgumwo ucmoemm muposmmsoz academm muFogwmsoz pcooeme mcpozmmaoz ucmueme mv—ozmmaoz tepmwu Eeeeez FpeEm coax gong cw seem emecwmm mo aaosw wNwm seem an mcmeu mzozmwpcoocoz m.m w—nmh 49 .uopammso; mavezpuxmt me.o NN.o¥ ‘ me.e , m.e Ne_e eEe=\eee em.e mp._P ep.m N_.N ere.e\eeN e.N m.N e.m N._ e.eeem=e=\mepeee o.oc_ NN e.oo_ CF o.oe_ NF oo. o, Peace e.N F -- - e.m F -- - A N e m.N m o.op F P._F N - - m e.N_ N o.om N N.NN e -- - e N.NP m o.o. P P..F N o.ON N N m.mm mp o.ee e 4.44 N o.om N N N.NF N o.ep _ e.m P o.em m P A.ezv A.ezv , A.ezv A.ezv eeeeeeeeemee “smegma moponmmaoz ucmoeme mopezmmzo: ucmueme mupozmmaoz pcmuema muposwmzoz «upmwu omen; , Esmcmz Ppesm wepeeemeez FF< mmmpu mNPm seam coax cogg cw seen umuemwecH eo azogw wNNm seen me muope emem mzoamvucoucoz ¢.m opamh 50 .comomm um: cw vamp uwue>Pupao quou we wmmucmuema as» men mommgucmgmq cw mmezmwe ”muoz AN.mev Ae.oe_v “N.NN Am.NV A_o.ev Ao_.FV Amo.ov -- -- Am.ov Am.Pev A,.mmv eN.F. eN.NP Pm.e _m.o No.0 ep.o m_.o -- -- mp.o Ne.ep Pe.ep useee .Pe Am.va Ao.eo_v AN.eV AN.ev Ae.ev ANP.oV Ae.ov -- -- Ae.ev Ae.Nev A_.mmv Nm.e, eN.NN mN._ mm.~ No.0 so. N.o -- -- N.o Pe.ep NN.ON eaten Ae.va Ao.oo.v AN._V AN.PV A_.v AN._V AN.PV -- -- Am._v AN.NNV AN.mev me.FP me.m_ NN.o NN.o No.e NN.e N.e -- -- N.o e_.F. ON.e. se_eez Ao.NmV Ao.oo_v AN.—V AN._V Ae.v Ae.mv -- -- -- -- Ae.emv AN.eov NN.m mm.m P.o F.e No.e N_.o -- -- -- -- P_.m __.m P_e5m "Egan cmpmmweeu Am.Fv Ao.oo_v Am._v Am._v -- Ae.ov -- -- -- -- -- Am.va NN.o NN.m_ mN.o mN.o -- N..o -- -- -- -- -- Ne.e_ meeee _P< AN.V Ao.oo_v AN.V AN.oV -- Am.ov -- -- -- -- -- AN.NNV mN.e ee.NN NN.o eN.o -- N.e -- -- -- -- -- Nm.em mates Ae.Nv Ao.oepv Ao.NV Ao.NV -- “8.08 -- -- -- -- -- A_.va mm.e NN.N_ mm.e mm.o -- e_.o -- -- -- -- -- eN.N. asset: Ao.mv Ao.oopv Ae.mv Ao.mv -- AN.oV -- -- -- -- -- Am.emv a..e NN.e mp.e mp.o -- Po.o -- -- -- -- -- N..e PpeeN "Esau umwcwmm Nye pm: Nun pm: xyo «m3 xgo um: zoo um: Ago um: EmpH maoeu FP< usesoeo «Pneummo> :eoo .mwmmmwmmlu mowm commmm ago use um: cw Aupogmmaoz\wmev voucmpa mog< ecu maogu magma umummpegm ecu vmmcpem on» to mmm_u mNPm Egan an uopcm—e moe< one maoeu m.m mpnmh 51 Nonglutinous rice is consistently produced for commercial purposes. Therefore, it is necessary for the households to grow enough rice for their consumption for it is a disgrace to have to buy rice. Small areas of vegetables are also grown, sometimes with supplemental water from swamps or shallow wells in the rainfed area. The orchard of the rainfed farm households is mostly for the growing of mulberry to support their sericulture or silkworm rearing enterprise which is common in this area. For the irrigated farms where a double cropping of rice is normally fbund, the area used for rice production in the dry season (January to April) is less than that in the wet season (May to December) due to a Shortage of irrigation water supply in the dry season. This is because the Nam Pong Irrigation Project has a policy to conserve enough water for generating electricity in that period. This causes most of the irrigated farmers, especially the medium and large farmers to cut down their total planted area for rice by 25 and 50 percent, respectively. The medium and large irrigated farmers also grow some cash crops, namely tobacco and glutinous corn, besides vegetables, but in a very small limited area of 0.2 rai per household due to locally limited market for glutinous corn and a deliberate supply control program for tobacco. 3.1.5 Existing Cropping Patterns The cropping patterns found in both rainfed and irrigated farms were very simple as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. This represents a composite of all cropping alternatives, but for most rainfed farms the cropping pattern is simply glutinous and nonglutinous rice in the rainy season. The nursery of rice can be prepared as early as May and as late as the end of June. This allows the rainfed farmers more flexibility in trans- planting and planting rice in June or July which, in turn, may help the :mex :ozx cw mate; emecwwm eo mw>wumcemgp< mcwaaoeu mcwpmmxm F.m eeeewe Apmwuemeeoococv :muemu mpnmumam>u IAW\\V [A \ 52 .e_eeeeme> eepeeueae> llJl \ N \ .nxau_eeeeee>1\\\\ 1\\\AH -\\\\- iN\\\\, 1A\\\\1 -epeeueme> \ \ mumm mzocwuspmcoz \ -.e_eeeeme> -\\\\1 «mpnmpmam> -\\\\\ 1\\\M\ mowm maocwpa~mcoz ll. «ova mzocwp=Fw 1\\\\1 muwm maocwuzpw NF F.N pp —.~_ N.o~ F.op w N.¢ _.e N.m29.m N.N—p.N ea< gm: 4 nee can boo >oz Nee new m=< pee eee 53 coax cocx c, «Esau vouumpccn we mm>_ueccmup< mcwccocu mcpumpxm N.m occmvu Apcpucmasoucocv cmvcmm o_ceuwmm>ee \ HM \ aempccuomo> .-1\\Uuu‘. 1\\\\\1, «mpncuomm>1\\\\\\1 t\\\‘ eembccummo> 1\\\\ \ Nib 25500., \ \ ouucco» «no_z comcom Nee \\ Bug 1\\\\\V \ «ouwz common Ac: t\\\\1 oooccoh -\\\\\1 emuwm comoumuquz \\\\V \ «cm—asomu> \ ot~3uumfl> “ \ flout. 533 N "IIII. 1\\\\\1 9:. ccou 3 h\ «Nova cowaom No: 1\\\\\1 soup: concom um: .oopc maocvucpmcoc ecu maocwu=_o cuomu N.Np ~.N— N.: 7:. N.o— —.c_. °° \\\ Né pé N.m Tm N.N —.N <\ 8:: ca< .3: 8c cua um: >oz uuo com 95¢ p3. caa an: 5:0: 54 farmers to avoid a problem of a labor shortage during the planting period. It is interesting to note that the rainfed farmers also choose different glutinous and nonglutinous rice varieties. Part of this is explained by the desire to stagger periods and thus to cope with typical labor short- ages at the harvesting season. The local photosensitive variety of "Dang" which is known as a middle maturing variety of nonglutinous rice (i.e., it can be ready for harvest in late October no matter whether it is planted in June or July) to be grown along with the late maturing San Pa Jong variety of glutinous rice, which matures in November no matter whether it is planted in June or July. However, this flexibility result- ing from the choice of rice planting dates as well as the choice of rice variety will be of greater help for the small farmer in smoothing out planting and harvesting labor requirements. A double cropping pattern with the long-maturing variety of wet season rice and short-maturing variety of dry season rice along with a small area of tobacco in wet season and glutinous corn in dry season was commonly found on the irrigated farms. The local photosensitive variety of long-maturing glutinous rice, namely San Pa Tong and nonglutinous rice, namely Mae Loop, were grown by most irrigated farmers in the wet season. The high-yielding nonphotosensitive with a short maturation period were planted in the dry season after wet season rice. These high yielding rice varieties require only 90 days for their maturation counting from their planting dates. Most of the dry season rice was produced mainly for commercial purposes to provide income for the family rather than for family consumption. The labor activities profile by periods for rice and other cash crops grown by rainfed and irrigated farmers are illustrated in 55 Figures 3.3 and 3.4. On the irrigated farm, due to their better avail- ability of water, there seems to be more time flexibility for preparing a nursery of wet season rice compared with the rainfed farms. The nurs- ery of wet season rice can be prepared from May to July for the irrigated farms, but the rainfed farmers can establish the nursery from only May to June. Land preparation for rice production is another area differentiating rainfed and irrigated farms. It was found that most of the sample house- holds of the rainfed farms use water buffalo to plow their paddy land, while on irrigated farms, the land preparation was done by either water buffalos or a small, two-wheel machine tiller in both wet and dry seasons. 3.2 Family Net Income and Farm Size Household net income is defined as the gross value of the production from farm and nonfarm enterprises minus their respective cash operating expenses plus the value of wages earned off the farm. The net income earned from farm enterprises includes the net value of farm products (e.g. rice, vegetables, fruits, livestock and poultry) or the gross value of farm product produced by the farmers minus the farm operating expenses. However, for the purposes of this study the sale of capital asset such as land, cattle and water buffalo owned for more than one year have been excluded. These sales are infrequent and viewed from an accrual account- ing point of view, the cost of such animal are roughly offset by their end of year inventory value and their sale value is offset by their be- ginning of the year inventory value. 56 coax cocx c? Econ vmecpum cc comcwc an mp_cocc mmvup>vuu< cocu m.m occmwm mc_cmmcc» u :h mmc_umm>ce: u p: "covuccccmcc ecu; u a; mxcmmczz u z “muoz PIE 1.. H: _-|. 1- 1-.. landfill _ Hm mop: mcocpucpmcoz cameom um: H - occu nocu our: mzocwwcpw common no: N.NN _.N_ N.FF_F.PF N.oF_P.oF a N N m m N.c_P.e N.mm~.m N.NH_.N _ ca< cm: com cow omo >oz poo mom ms< pca wcza xcz ee_eee ecu eecu Ne ee_N.>_uu< cocu 57 coax cocx c. scam couaawccm mo no_cmc an appeocc mm—uw>wao< cocu c.m mesa?» acpcmmccp u zh mmcpumw>caz u h: cacao coca u up mmcwucapc n #8 ”co_uacacmcc ccaa u 84 mxcwmccz u z “muoz uu hc+ca . ccou "|"l“"l'l|'-“'|'|"|"'-'l..j’j‘|nl"'oln'cl"‘l'l mw:---1H=--11 luu _Hm — -1-1--11-----11---.H-Hu .---- - - - - - licence uu S i out. 84 comaom Ago H: «can coco HM— . mA- oupz cemamm um: N.Np—p.N— w.Fp—p.pp w.o—flp.cp a m N c m ~.¢——.¢ N.m —.m N.N—~.N p cc< cat no; -mmm. um: >02 uuo.. com uc< .33 cca Aaz coca Handmade-neg 3§N§52 58 Net income from nonfarm enterprises is the difference between the gross value of nonfarm products produced in the households (such as silk fabric, mats and bamboo products) and the total operating expenses incur- ring in the household nonfarm production activities. Income from family off-farm work refers to wages earned by family members who work as paid laborers in field work, construction, manufactur- ing or salary earners in commerce and services. Table 3.6 shows the three main components of family net income by farm size class for rainfed and irrigated farms. In the case of medium and large sized rainfed farms, farm enterprises provide the primary source of family net income while the most important sources of family net income for small farm is off-farm work. Net income from farm enter- prises accounts for 44, 42 and 27 percent of the total family net income for the large, medium and small farms respectively. This suggests that the net farm income as a proportion of total net income is positively related to the size of farm operated by the house- holds. This may be explained in part by the fact that the major contri- butor to farm income is rice production which is largely dependent on the amount of farmland. Thus, the household operating the larger farm can earn more income from farm enterprises than the ones operating smaller farms. Off-farm work makes a very significant contribution to net income for rainfed farms, especially, the small farm size group. It provides 52 percent of the total family net income for the small farm household whereas the households operating medium and large farm obtain 38 and 37 percent of their total family income respectively from off-farm work. Again, income obtained from off-farm work (or hiring out farm family .. 59 .Paaou cscpou ecu mo mmmaucmucmc mca mammcucmcac cw accessz "muoz Ao.oepv Ao.oocv Ao.oopv Ao.ocpv Ao.eepv Ao.oepv Ae.eocv Ac.oo_v mNNeN NmNmN amomN mesa. NNFNP eeme_ N_ea_ same. _aaee A_.va Aa.ecc Ac.eNv Am.eev Am.eec A4.NNV AN.NNV Ae.va mace Name .eee NeNN eeea Naea ease Pena eeeeec Ease-eeo Am.ov Ao.Pv AN.ov Ae.ov AF.eNV Ae.apc AQ.ONV Ae.PNV NNP Nam em Ne Nmem seam mmNN ommm eeeeea etaeeoz “4.4Nc AN.eNV Ae.mcv Aa.emv Ao.mmv Ao.eec AN..ev Ae.eNv NNON. NeomN Lemma mama FNeN NNNN eNeN NNNe aceeec ease macac FF< coca; screw: ppasm macau pp< mmcaa scrum: pFaEm Avpocmmzoc can “cacv «mapo mavm scam an macam umuamwccu we acoucH pmz Acpocmmaoc can pcanv mma—o warm Esau Na mecam caecwam we maoucH uaz o.m mpnah mscau cwuamwccm eca amecvam to mmapu aNmm scam aca muccom Ac msoucH uaz apwaau co cowcvmochu 60 members) as well as net farm income on the basis of a percentage of to- tal family net income, seems to show a close relationship to the farm size, but in the opposite manner. This means that the households oper- ating smaller farm earn proportionately much more income from family members hiring out labor than is the case for the larger farms. This is as one would expect because families on small tracts of land in a rainfed area will find it difficult to utilize as much labor for farm production activities as is possible on larger farms. Nonfarm enterprises generate about 20 percent of net income for rainfed farms regardless of size. This corresponds with the previous study on the composition of household income in the Khon Kaen rainfed area conducted by Fuhs [1979]. Table 3.6 indicates that the households holding small and medium farms earn 21 percent of their total family net income from nonfarm enterprise whereas large farm households earn 19 percent of the total family net income on the average. In the case of irrigated farms, net income obtained from farm en- terprises is the most important source of family earning for all farm size classes. It accounts for 55, 76 and 84 percent of the family net income of small, medium and large farms, respectively. Nonfarm enter- prises provide little supplementary net income to families on the irri- gated farms compared with rainfed farms amounting to only about 0.4, 0.2 and 1.0 percent of the total family net income for small, medium and large, respectively. It is interesting to note that off-farm employment also plays a significant role in generating income for farm families even in the irrigated area. As an income earner, it is next to the farm enter- prises and provides 45, 24 and 15 percent of the total family net income 61 for the households who operate small, medium and large farms, respective- ly. So, we may generalize the conclusion that for all farms, nonfarm income as a percentage of total has an inverse relationship to farm size and that the net farm income as a proportion of total net income has a positive relationship to farm size. 3.3 Nonfarm Enterprises In the past decade, rural nonfarm enterprise or cottage industry were commonly regarded as an insignificant part the rural household “economy. But it is apparent that their contribution has been previously understated in their contribution to rural economy in terms of income generating activity as well as their contribution to household self-em- ployment. However, in recent years, there has been a growing body of evidence obtained from many studies of the rural economy at the village level in the north, northeast and central regions of Thailand, (see Fuhs, 1979; Sektheera, 1979), which support the important role of cottage industry in providing income to family and in increasing family labor employment. The figures of household earnings from nonfarm enterprises shown in Table 3.6 add support to these recent findings. The specific form of nonfarm enterprises varied between rainfed and irrigated areas. Table 3.7 reveals that there are four nonfarm enterprises found in the sample households of rainfed farms and irrigated farms. Mat making is the only common enterprise found in both farming situations. Com- paring on the basis of number of households engaged in nonfarm enter- prises, the rainfed farm households appear to participate more Table 3.7 62 Types of Nonfarm Enterprises, Off-Farm Work and Number of Farm Households Engaged Rainfed Farms Irrigated Farms Household Household Item Product Nos. Percent Nos. Percent Total Households 39 -- 38 -- Type of Nonfarm Enterprise: Sericulture Silk Thread 22 56.4 -- -- Silk Weaving Patterned 23 58.9 -- -- Fabric Rice Container Sticky Rice 20 51.2 -- -- Marketing Container Mat Making Mat 7 17.9 7 18.4 Basket Making Basket -- -- 10 26.3 Cotton Weaving Cotton -- -- 19 50.0 Fabric Off-Farm Work Wage 36 92.3 19 50.0 63 in nonfarm enterprises, than is the case for the irrigated farm house— holds. There is only one nonfarm enterprise found to have 50 percent of the total households engaged for the rainfed farms while more than 50 percent of total rainfed farm households engaged in 3 main nonfarm enterprises. The fact that more than one nonfarm enterprise may be found on many rainfed farms is shown by a total of 72 enterprises being reported for 39 households. This, of course, results in a total Of all individual percentages of the sample adding to more than 100. Silk weaving, sericulture and the making of sticky rice containers are the dominant nonfarm enterprises for the rainfed farm households with more than half of the total households engaged in them. Cotton weaving appears to dominate the other two nonfarm enterprises--mat and basket making for the irrigated farms with 50 percent of the total households engaged in this enterprise. The nature of each type of nonfarm enterprises, including its pro- cess are discussed as follows. 3.3.1 Sericulture Sericulture has been practiced as the supplementary enterprise to rice production by the Northeast farm households for many decades. Ninety-eight percent of the total households engaged in sericulture were found to be in Northeast with Khon Kaen Province producing about 16.4 percent of the total national silk yarn production [Charsombut, 1981]. Sericulture involves both growing mulberry and raising silk worms, as the mulberry leaves are the main feed of silk worms. The main final product of sericulture is silk thread or yarn, which can be produced through two stages in the production process. The first stage 64 is to raise and feed silk worms until they become cocoons. It takes about 25-30 days from the time eggs are hatched before they become co- coons. Then, the successive process includes boiling the cocoon (to prevent them from becoming pupas) reeling and spinning to obtain silk threads from the filament of the cocoon. The sericulture production cycle can be repeated up to 6 times a year, but in practice for the sam- ple farm households, the process was repeated only 4 times a year. This is because the mulberry grown by the household at the edge of their com- pound area or on a small piece of land located near the compound area, can not produce enough mulberry leaves to raise slikworms year round. In addition, agricultural scientists have found that most of the mul- berry grown in the villages was a local variety which usually produces leaves at a relatively low level of production. The first two lots of sericulture are started in May and July while the third and fourth lots are undertaken in November and March, respectively. Sericulture is dominated by female and child labor. Children (7-lilyears old) are found to be very helpful especially in feeding silk worms. Budgets for each nonfarm enterprise were prepared on the basis of farmer experience and are in the appendix. Some budget details are summarized as follows. To produce 1200 grams of silk thread 107 kilograms of mulberry leaves are required for feeding silk worms and 87 hours of female labor along with 78 hours of child labor are needed for raising silk worms. This includes 64 hours of female labor for processing silk thread. The average price of silk yarn received by the farm household was B50 per 100 gram at the time of the survey. 65 3.3.2 Silk Weaving Silk weaving is one of the major nonfarm enterprises found along with sericulture in the rainfed farm households. Because sericulture provides the silk yarn used for the silk weaving enterprise. The main product from silk weaving is silk fabric - the woven cloth consisting of numerous yarns running parallel by the warp and running across by the weft. Most of silk fabric found in the sample households is the patterned fabric which is a designed fabric made by tieing wefts into patterns before dyeing. After weaving, the designed patterns appear on the fabric. It is well known by the Thai name of "Pa-Mud-Mee." The patterned fabric is usually woven by a native hand loom called a throw shuttle loom. The production process of patterned fabric includes 3 major steps including warps preparation, weft preparation and weaving. Warp preparation is a process of preparing yarns for running parallel along the length of the fabric. It includes degumming and dyeing warps, winding warps for determining the length of fabric, connecting warps with a loom, and loom setting for strengthening warps and preparing them for weaving. The weft preparation involves a process of preparing silk yarns for beaming. It composes several activities such as spin- ning yarns together to increase the thickness and weight of the fabric, degumming and dyeing weft, winding weft into a skein for patterning, patterning, wrapping to keep the desired color of the weft by tieing the plastic ribbon on the colored weft before another degumming, unwrap- ping to remove the plastic ribbon from the weft, and re-reeling the patterned weft from the skein into finer ribbons. The weaving is a final process of beaming by inserting the weft through the warp to make fabric. Tools and equipment used by the household were native and 66 simple such as native throw shuttle loom, wood frame, pot and stove for degumming and dyeing, and making of patterned fabric involves many ac- tivities. Thus, silk weaving is very labor intensive and a time con- suming enterprise. 0n the average to make one piece of pattern fabric with the regular size of 1.05 by 1.0 meter requires 45 hours for all activities in production. Females dominate the silk weaving enterprise. An enterprise budget of silk patterned fabric is shown in Appendix Table . The average price of patterned fabric received by the house- hold was 350 baht per piece (1.05 x 1.0 meter). The net return to fe- male family is about B2.99 per silk. Silk fabric can be woven by female family labor year round, but it is likely to be found in the period when labor demanded for rice production is minimum. 3.3.3 Sticky Rice Container Making Sticky rice container making is one of the important family non- farm enterprise for the rainfed farmers. About 51% of the sample house- holds engaged in this enterprise. It was found to be produced year round, especially during the period when labor is not needed for plant- ing and harvesting of rice. Making sticky rice containers differs from the production of other nonfarm products in the sense that both male and female adults as well as children participate. For instance, to produce 28 sticky rice containers, it takes on average about 63 hours of male labor, 72 hours of female labor and 4 hours of child labor (Appendix Table 5). The main raw material for making sticky rice con- tainers is bamboo. The container is composed of 3 main parts: the container cover, the container body and its stand. The production pro- cess of making sticky rice containers is simple. Initially, the bamboo 67 is cut, split and smoothed into small thin strips by male workers. Then, the body and the cover of containers are woven separately by male, female and children. The edges of both body and corner parts are rounded and tied by females with rattan strips and plastic yarn to strengthen it. Finally, each part is assembled (by males) along with the container rounded stand. Sticky rice containers are produced mainly to serve the Khon Kaen local market. Khon Kaen farmers like other North- east farmers traditionally perfer to keep their cooked glutinous rice in this sticky rice container made from bamboo because it is able to preserve the cooked glutinous rice better than the other nonbamboo-made containers. In addition, the bamboo-made container is light and handy to carry by the farmers to their rice fields. An average price received by the farm household is 10 baht per sticky rice container. The net return to family labor computes to B7.60 per container or B1.62 per hour. 3.3.4 Mat Making Production of reed mats is commonly found in many Khon Kaen vil- lages, especially in the upland farming areas. Most of the mats pro- duced in the households are of relatively low quality, and do not last long in normal use because they are woven using native tools and because, the reed strips are of uneven size and may include some of low quality. This causes the mats produced to be coarse and easily loosened. Mat making, is of minor importance in the sample households, used in the immediate study (excluding upland villages) since only 18 percent of the total households in both rainfed and irrigated areas engaged in making mats for sale. Women and children within the household family supply most of the labor in mat making. Normally, it requires two 68 persons to make mats. One is a weaver and another is an assistant to insert reed strips during weaving. The production process starts with harvesting reeds which are first split into narrow width pieces lengthen- ed and then dried for two to three days. Dyeing is done if it is re- quired. Then if dyed, the colored reeds are dried for an additional two to three days before being ready for weaving. Either plastic strings or kenaf strings are used as the warp. The simple tools employed for mat making include the native loom and a wood frame. The stem of the sharep-edge reed naturally grown in swamp and paddy field is the major raw material used along with kenaf strings, plastic strings, and dyes, for making mats. Most mats are used locally by low income people [Charsombut, 1981]. To produce one piece of mat in the regular size of 1.5 by 2 meters requires 3.2 hours of adult female and 1.7 hours of child labor. The price of mats received by the farm households averaged B7 per piece. Net return to family labor was B4.1 per one mat or 80.83 per hour (including child labor). (See Appendix Table 6 where the mat making budget is shown based on 60 mats, the average of the most recent outputs of households interviewed during the supplemental survey.) 3.3.5 Cotton Weaving Cotton weaving is the major family industry found in the irrigated farm households with 50 percent of the sample households engaged in it. However, none of the rainfed farms reported this activity. This acti- vity occurs mostly during the dry season (January to April). This is explained in part by the high humidity in the wet season making the cotton more difficult to weave [Orapin, 1981]. Furthermore, as pointed out earlier, rainy season rice production makes heavy demands on family 69 labor which may relegate cotton weaving to a dry season activity. The households mainly produce cotton fabric for their own family use, but it can be sold if they produce more than they need. About 7 percent of total production of cotton fabric is sold locally [Orapin, 1981]. The cotton yarn is purchased from the merchant in town rather than being produced by the household. Cotton weaving like silk weaving is dominated by women. The pro- duction of cotton fabric in the household includes many activities similar to those in silk fabric production (i.e., warp preparation, reeling cotton yarn, degumming and dyeing, patterning and weaving). Native thrown shuttle looms and wood frames are the main tools and equipment used in cotton weaving. To complete one piece of cotton fab- ric with the size of 1 by 1.5 meters, it requires on the average, 12 hours of female family labor. Based on the average sale price received by the household, the net return to family labor is B36 per piece or B2.90 per hour. (See Appendix Table 18 where the cotton weaving budget is shown based on 16 pieces, the average of the most recent outputs of the households interviewed during the supplemental survey.) 3.3.6 Basket Making Unlike the other nonfarm enterprises found in the irrigated farm households, the production of baskets is carried out by men. It was found that 26 percent of the sample households produce baskets during the periods not devoted to the farming activities of planting and har- vesting. Bamboo is the major raw material along with rattan strip need- ed for making baskets. Production activities in basket making starts with cutting, splitting and smoothing off the bamboo stem to get 7O bamboo strips, and then weaving and tieing with rattan strips. There are only a few simple tools used by the farmers e.g. bamboo splitting knife, bamboo sizer knife and a saw. To produce two baskets with 12 inches of diameter, 55.5 hours of adult male family labor are required. Baskets are normally sold in the household village. Based on the aver- age sale price of B22.5 per basket the net return to family labor is 11 baht per basket or B0.39 per hour (Appendix Table 19). 3.4 Off-Farm Employment The earlier discussion revealed the importance of off-farm work in .providing a significant amount of income to the household family in both rainfed and irrigated areas. There are many activities of nonfarm work in which the household family members are engaged. They can be classified into two categories according to whether employment is in farming jobs or whether it is in nonfarming employment pursuits. 3.4.1 Off-Farm Employment in Agricultural Field Work Hiring out of family labor to work in the rice field is the most common off-farm work found in both rainfed and irrigated farms. Many households with a large labor force relative to their farmland earn wage income by hiring out their excess labor in local field work. This kind of employment opportunity has developed as the production of rice has changed from a family self-sufficient to a more commercially orient- ed enterprise, especially on the larger farms. Farmers with insufficient family labor to accomplish all of their rice production labor activities, especially during certain critical periods must hire in labor. In ad- dition, the traditional practice of exchanging labor among the farmer families has declined substantially in recent years. Generally, the 71 households operating the larger farms hire the needed labor from the smaller sized farms with a surplus of family labor. The demand for hired labor is concentrated in the peak labor requirement periods of land preparation, transplanting and planting, harvesting and threshing rice. As pointed out earlier, some of these activities are differen- tiated according to sex. For example, most of the female hired labor is commonly employed for transplanting and planting activities, while male hired labor is employed for land preparation. Both male and female hired labors are employed for harvesting and threshing activities. 0n the average, wages paid to male and female labor are approximately equal, ranging from B2.8 to B3.5 per hour. In addition to off-farm work in rice production in both rainfed and irrigated areas, many farmers reported to have employed some field workers for upland crops such as cassava, kenaf and sugar cane. Upland farmers growing these crops usually hire in many workers from the local area to help in harvesting and hauling activities. The upland farmers pay, on the average, B25 per day or 3.2 per hour for either male or female workers. 3.4.2 Off-Farm Employment from Nonagricultural Wage Sources Many farm family members in both rainfed and irrigated areas were hired out to work in nonagricultural employment areas such as construc- tion, manufacturing, commerce and services. These off-farm income generating activities of family members occurred in every period, but they tended to be concentrated in the slack period during the late wet ’1 season (September and February). This period corresponds to the time when most of the major manufacturing activities take place in cassava 72 processing plants, kenaf balling plants and sugar refineries. Thus many farmers can hire out their labor during these periods when local factories are operating. Furthermore, construction activities can func- tion faster during the dry season months than during the period of heavy rain. For these kinds of offefarm work, the wages paid for male are higher than for female. 0n the average male labor was paid B35 a day (or B4.38 per hour) and female labor was paid B30 per day (or B3.75 per hour). 3.5 Family Composition, Labor Force and Labor Profiles Labor is one of the most important family resources besides land that helps determine the level of family income depending upon its op- portunities among farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work. In this section the composition of the household family, the family labor force, and their relationship to cultivated land, as well as the seasonal pro- file of total hour worked by family in farm and nonfarm enterprises and off-farm employment will be examined. 3.5.1 Family Composition and Labor Force Khon Kaen farm households like the other Thai rural households are characterized as extended family commonly including the immediate family and occasionally grandparents and grandchildren. The number of members in the sample households averaged 5.9 for the rainfed farm and 5.4 for the irrigated farm respectively. Table 3.8 reveals that, within the rainfed farm households, the average size of household tends to increase with the size of farm. The large-sized farm household has a larger fa- mily size (7.1 person per family) than medium farm households (5.7 per- son per family) and small farm household (5.6 person per family). The .mucoe conaF ecu cF mcmcsms uFocwmzoc ecu No concococc ac» mchcmmmccac mcacsme AFFEaF Fave» No ucmucmNNH xFFEaF can N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.F N.N N.N N.F N.N mocc» coca; N.NN N.NN m.F¢ N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN ¢.FN N.NN N.NN \Hucmocma 73 NNF «N NN NN NN NN NN NN om cc NF NN mace» Lona; N.N N.N F.m F.N N.N N.N N.N N.N F.N N.N N.N N.N amaco>< ooF N.NN F.NN ooF N.NN N.NN ooF N.NN F.¢N ooF N.NN N.FN chocma NNN NFF NNF FN NN NN NoF om NN NN NN NN Faqu NF N N N N c N N N F - F ca>o Nca NN N N m N N - c N F N - N NN-NN NF N N c N N m c N N N F NN-mc NF m N N c c N N c - - - Nc-Nc NF N N F F - N c F e N N Fc-NN FN N NF N N c N N c N N c cm-NN NN NF NN N N N NN N «F N N N NN-FN Ne NF cN NF oF N ON N «F N N N NN-cF om NF NF N N e OF N N FF N N NF-N Fe «N NF N c c NF FF N NF m N N cmuc: FauoN mFasmN aFaz FauoN «Nasam aFaz FapoN mFaEmN mFaz ranch aFaeaN mFaz mmaFN mELaN FF< mmcag Echoz FFaeN wm< xmm an cacao: AFFEaN Nca mmaFo NNFN scam mscau uchFaN .mmaFN NNFN Scam an xmm uca macaw mm< An nuance: aFFsaN No consaz N.N anaN 74 relationship between the family size and the size of farm operated by irrigated farm households is not conclusive as all farm size groups were found to have about the same number of person per family. The average number of persons per family is 5.5 for small farm, 5.2 for medium farm and 5.3 for large farm size (see Table 3.9). Inasmuch as families vary as to size and composition according to age and sex, they likewise vary in their family labor supply and in their needs, as consumers. For this study, the family labor force was defined as including any member of the family who is at least 7 and not more than 65 years old. For this sample of farms, the size of the family labor force varies among the farm size groups and between the rainfed or irrigated farm households. For the rainfed farms, about 4 persons or 71 percent of the household members are in labor force for the small farm, whereas the households with medium-sized farm and large-sized farm have 5.7 person or 80 percent and 5.6 persons or 79 percent of their family members in the labor force, respectively. Among the irrigated farm households the small farm and medium farm households have about 89 percent and 87 percent, or 4.9 persons of their family members in labor force, which is slightly larger than the family labor force of the large household having 4.4 persons or 83 percent of the family mem- ber in the labor force. Classifying the family labor force as to adult male, adult female (with the age from 14 to 65 years old) and children (with the age from 7 to 13 years old) permits discussion according to the different roles and contribution that are made to the family labor supply. For instance, the 7 to 13 year old children must attend the elementary school due to the RTG policy for improving literacy in the rural areas. Consequently, .Ncansms AFFEam Fauou mo ucaocmaxfl NFFEaN cog N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N mucoN Nona; F.¢N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.F¢ m.Fe N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN o.FN “wucmocmm 75 NNF NN NN 44 NN NN NN Ne Fe Ne NN NN Nee eeNaN N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N NNNNN>< NNF N.NN N.NN NNF N.NN N.NN NNF N.NN N.NN NNF o.FN N.NN Neaeeee FFN NFF NN NN NN NN NNF NN Ne NN NN NN FaNeF N e N N F F N F F N N - ease Nee NN N N e N F F N F F N F N NN-NN FF N N N N F N N N N F N NN-NN eN NF NF 4 N N N e N FF N N Ne-Ne NF FF N e N N N N N N N F Fe-NN NF N N N e N N N e N F N eN-NN FN NF NF N N N NF N N N e N NN-FN Ne NN NF NF N N NN NF N NF N e NN-eF NN NF NF N N N NN FF N N N N NF-N NN NF N N N N FF N N e N N N twee: Fapoh aFaEaN aha: FapoN mFaEmN mFaz FauoN mFaEmN aha: FauoN mFaEmN mFm: NNaFN Necau FF< amcaN EzFuw: FFaEN mm< xmm vca NNaFo NNFN scam scam cmpachcH Fo mmaFu NNFN Egan uca xmm .mm< An Nausea: NFFEaN Fo coascz N.N anaN 76 they cannot fully contribute to the family labor force and be productive especially during the schooling time. Adult females play the pivotal role in domestic house work e.g. chores, cooking, rearing children and some family industries like silk weaving and mat making. The work of adult males is primarily on farm enterprises. For the rainfed farm household, on the average, each farm size group, small, medium and large, has more adult males than adult females in their family labor force, but the amount of child labor varies little among the three different farm size groups. However, the irrigated farm households averaged more fe- males than males in their labor force for every farm size class. No causal relationship is implied here. 3.5.2 Land-Labor Relationship For a given area of farmland available, the amount and kind of crops grown may be related both to the number of consuming family mem- bers as well as to the amount of family labor that is available to work in the fields. Some relationships between land and labor are shown in Table 3.10 by farm size. For the rainfed farm households, the ratio of land to labor is 3.0, 4.5 and 7.1 rai per adult for farms in the small, medium and large sized farm respectively (Table 3.10). This suggests that the labor may be in excess supply on small farms and in short supply on large farms as far as meeting crop labor requirements are concerned. This statement would not hold if small farms had more intensive crop- ping programs than on larger farms. But since rice is the primary rainy season crop on all farms, this conclusion is generally applicable. In- deed, the indication of excess labor on small farms and labor shortages 77 NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N coca; NF=u< can NN.N NN.N NN.N NF.N mucoN coca; can NN.NF NN.NN NN.NF NN.N uFocmmao: can FFacv ccao umpa>FuF=u ooF N.N ooF N.N ooF N.N ooF N.N FauoN NF N.N NF N.N FF N.N NN F.F uFFcu NN N.F Ne N.N om N.F om N.F aFaEaN chc< Ne F.N Fe N.N oN N.N me N.F mFaz NF=N< mucou coca; NecaN umwcFaN NN.N NN.N NF.N NN.N coca; quu< cam NN.N NN.N NF.N NN.N mucom Lona; cam NN.NF NN.NN NN.NF NN.N cFocamzoz can AFacv ucao umpa>Fcho ooF N.N ooF N.N ooF N.N ooF N.N FapoN NF N.N NF N.N NN F.F NF N.N NFFcN Ne N.N Ne N.N me F.N Ne N.N aFaEaN pF=u< mm N.F mm N.F Nm N.F Fe N.N mFaz chu< aucoN coaag NscaN umuachcH I: z: I: z: N cmc .oz N can .oz N can .oz N can .oz Nacau FF< mmgao Echmz FFaeN NNaFN NNFN Scam Necam echFaN Nca napaNFccH No NNaFN NNFN scam Na aucou Nona; NFFEaN mo coFuFNoNEoN am< uca xmm oF.m anaP 78 on large farms is even more pronounced on irrigated farms where the land per adult worker is 4.2, 4.1, 8.8 rai for the small, medium and large farm respectively (Table 3.10). 3.5.3 Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm and Off-Farm Activities 3.5.3.1 Farm Labor 0n the basis of the average hour worked per family for all sample households, it was as expected that farm work dominated nonfarm work and off-farm work by accounting for nearly 62 percent of the total family labor use (Table 3.11). In addition, the important role of farm work as the percent of total family labor use increases with the size of the operational farm. For instance, the farm work contributes 53, 62 and 69 percent of the total family labor use to small, medium and large farm size respectively (Table 3.11). There is more farm work to be ac- complished on large farms requiring the households with large farm size to devote more of their family labor in farming than the households with smaller sized farm. 1 Comparing the share of family labor in farm work (as the percent of the total family labor use) between irrigated farm households, and rainfed farm households, we note that the irrigated farmers devote nearly 68 percent of their family labor use to farm work while the rain- fed farmers contribute about 55 percent of their family labor use to farm work. This is because the irrigated farmers can grow dry season rice which expands the potential for farm work. Regardless of farm size or type, farm work was dominated by adult males relative to adult females and children. On the average, about 79 Table 3.11 Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm and Off-Faun Activities, Rainfed and Irrigated Farms, by Fann Size1 and Labor Class Item Rainfed Fanms Irrigated Farms A11 Farms Number of Fanns S M L All 5 M L A11 S M L All Hours/Household/Year 10 19 10 39 10 18 10 38 20 37 20 77 Farm Work £26 £32 m 3322 3_54_9_ 3i1_8_ 1423 M M 3674 4394 3722 Male 1290 1854 2411 1852 1543 1805 2168 1832 1416 1830 2289 1842 Female 853 1053 1459 1106 1540 1590 1714 1609 1197 1321 1587 1358 Children 583 323 494 434 466 723 541 607 525 523 518 522 Non-Farmerk wfimmflflflflmmmm Male 479 332 583 434 95 244 160 183 287 288 372 310 Female 813 836 981 867 151 405 537 373 482 620 759 620 Children 391 217 173 250 91 128 64 101 241 173 118 176 Off-Famwork Mlfiflflfllfiflilflfllfl—éflfilflflflfl Male 911 779 431 724 1253 390 147 553 1082 585 289 637 Female 537 431 407 452 891 676 410 663 714 553 408 557 Children - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Hrs/Household §§§Z_ §§g§_ gagg. 9112_ 6030 §2§1_ 5151_ 5221 5944 §§g§_ 6359' gggg Male 2680 2965 3424 3010 2891 2439 2475 2568 2786 2702 2950 2789 Female 2203 2320 2847 2425 2582 2671 2661 2645 2392 2496 2754 2535 Children 974 540 667 684 557 851 605 708 766 695 636 698 Percent Distributiong/ Farm Work WWW Male 47.3 57.4 55.2 54.6 43.5 43.8 49.0 45.3 45.1 49.8 52.1 49.5 Female 31.3 32.6 33.4 32.6 43.4 38.6 38.8 39.7 38.2 36.0 36.1 36.5 Children 21.4 10.0 11.4 12.8 13.1 17.6 12.2 15.0 16.7 14.2 11.8 14.0 Non-Farm Work WWW Male 28.5 24.0 33.6 28.0 28.2 31.4 21.0 27.8 28.4 26.6 29.8 28.0 Female 48.3 60.4 56.5 56.0 44.8 52.1 70.6 56.8 47.7 57.4 60.8 56.1 Children 23.2 15.6 9.9 16.0 27.0 16.5 8.4 15.4 23.9 16.0 9.4 15.9 Off-Farm Work WW Male 62.9 64.4 51.4 61.6 58.4 36.6 26.4 45.5 60.2 51.4 41.5 53.4 Female 37.1 35.6 48.6 38.4 41.6 63.4 73.6 54.5 39.8 48.6 58.5 46.6 Children 0 0 0 O - - - - - - - - Total 100 ’100 100 7100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Male 45.8 50.9 49.3 49.2 47.9 40.9 43.1 43.4 46.9 45.9 46.5 46.3 Female 37.6 39.8 41.1 39.6 42.8 44.8 46.4 44.7 40.2 42.3 43.5 42.1 Children 16.6 9.3 9.6 11.2 9.3 14.3 10.5 11.9 12.9 11.8 10.0 11.6 1/ S - Small, M - Medium L - Large 2/ Labor class percentages computed as percent of work type. 80 half of the total hours devoted to farm work is provided by adult males, while adult female and child labor share 37 and 14 percent of their to- tal family labor use in farming respectively (Table 3.11). Despite the dominance of the male role in farming, the important role of both adult females and children (especially with a limited labor supply of children during the schooling period) is very evident. 3.5.3.2 Nonfarm Work The supplemental role provided by nonfarm work (in family cottage industry) is shown by the observation that about 18 percent of total family labor use for all sample households was allocated to this area. In comparison among farm size groups, the share of family labor to non- farm work varies little across farm size in the total sample as can be seen from Table 3.11. Considering all farms, nonfarm work accounts for 17, 18 and 20 percent of family labor use for small, medium and large sized farms respectively. As expected, the share of nonfarm work pro- portional to the total family labor use for the rainfed farms is larger than for the irrigated farms because the farming activities are limited for rainfed farm households and income must be supplemented by engaging more in many varieties of cottage industry. With regard to the type of labor, women labor in both rainfed and irrigated farm households appears to play the dominant role in nonfarm work by providing more than half (56%) of family labor worked in nonfarm activities while the men's labor share is only 28 percent of total fa- mily labor worked use. Children contribute nearly 16 percent of total family labor worked in nonfarm activities for both rainfed and irrigated farms. The role of children in nonfarm employment activities cannot be 81 explained adequately from the data provided in this study. In the cul- tural setting of rural Thailand, children are expected to develop basic skills and to avoid idleness whether or not their employment is regarded as profitable from a monetary standpoint. The role of women in develop- ment has received increased attention in recent years. The role of children may also be an area for more attention in research. 3.5.3.3 Off-Farm Work For the total sample households, about 20 percent of family labor is allocated to off-farm work. However, the contribution of off-farm work proportional to total family labor use varies widely by farm size group. It decreases as farm size increases for the total sample house- holds as well as for both rainfed and irrigated farm households as can be seen in Table 3.11. For total sample households, off-farm work shares 30, 19 and 11 percent of family labor use for small, medium and large sized farms. For the rainfed farms, it provides 25, 21 and 12 per- cent of family labor use for small, medium and large farm size, while it accounts for 36, 18 and 10 percent of family labor use for small, medium and large irrigated farms respectively. As observed earlier, the farm load is heavier on large farms than small farms. However, the proportion of total family labor time spent on nonfarm enterprises does not appear to be related to size of farm. Consequently, the conclusion can be reached that on small farms a smaller proportion of time spent on crop activities is compensated by off-farm employment and on large farms off-farm employment plays a lesser role because of the higher commitment to farm work. 82 The variation in the proportion of off-farm work being performed by male labor in relation to female is likely explained by the varying pro- portion of males in the labor force along with the heavy weighting of agricultural activities in the off-farm employment which may have a dis- proportionate level of male participation. Table 3.12 has converted the figures in Table 3.11 to average hours per person by dividing the total average hours per household by the corresponding average number of persons in the household labor force. This conversion makes a correction for the varying size of labor force among farm type and farm size classes. Table 3.13 converts the figures in Table 3.12 to percentage computed against total work hours by labor class. These percentages are not comparable with those shown in Table 3.11 which are based on the contributions from different labor classes to a work effort taking into account all members in the labor force. Many of the original conclusions still hold. For example, the male adult involvement in farm work increases with farm size and is higher on irrigated farms than on rainfed farms and the same generalization holds for adult female labor. The chief purpose of Table 3.13 is to examine the distribution of reported work hours for the average individual by labor class. We ob- serve that farm work is the dominant activity for children and for all adults on the average. Farm work accounts for 66, 54 and 75 percent of the average reported time for men, women and children respectively. About the same proportion of both men and women time is allocated to off-farm work on the average of all households but varies markedly among farm types and farm sizes. As farm size increases, the share of one's time spent in off-farm work decreases for both males and females and 83 Table 3.12 Hours Worked Per Person, Per Household, Per Year by Type of Work by Labor Class and by Fann Size, Rainfed and Irrigated Fanns Per Family Rainfed Farms Irrigated Fanns A11 Farms Item S H L All S H L A11 S M L All No. of Adult Males 1.70 2.26 2.30 2.13 2.20 1.78 1.70 1.87 1.95 2.02 2.00 2.00- No. of Adult Females 1.20 1.74 2.40 1.82 2.10 2.11 2.00 2.08 1.65 1.92 2.20 1.95 No. of children _ 1.10 .53 .90 .77 .60 1.11 .70 .87 .85 .82 .80 .82 Total Labor Force 4.00 4.53 5.60 4.72 4.90 5.00 4.40 4.82 4.45 4.76 5.00 4.77 Ave. Hours/Person Farm Work Male 759 820 1048 869 701 1014 1275 980 726 906 1144 921 Female 711 605 608 608 846 754 857 773 725 688 721 696 Children 530 609 549 563 777 651 773 698 618 638 647 636 Non-Farm Work Male 282 147 253 204 43 137 94 98 147 142 186 155 Female 678 480 409 476 83 192 268 179 292 323 345 318 Children 355 409 192 325 151 115 91 116 283 211 148 215 Off-Fanm Work Male 536 346 187 340 570 219 86 295 555 290 204 318 Female 447 248 169 248 490 320 205 319 433 288 186 286 Children -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Work Male 1577 1312 1488 1413 1314 1370 1455 1373 1428 1338 1474 1394 Female 1836 1333 1186 1332 1419 1266 1330 1271 1450 1299 1252 1300 Children 885 1018 741 888 928 766 864 814 901 849 795 851 No.of Fanms 10 19 10 38 10 18 10 38 20 37 20 77 Source: Computed from Tables 3.7, 3.8 and 3.11. Only persons over 6 and less than 66 years of age are computed. 84 Table 3.13 Percent of Total Hours Worked Per Person, Per Household, Per Year by Type of Work, by Labor Class and Farm Size. Rainfed and Irriaged Farms Per Family Rainfed Farms glrrigated Farms All Fanms Item 5’ H ’I’ A11 5 H” L All 5’ -_—H ’1 All No. of Adult Hales 1.70 2.26 2.30 2.13 2.20 1.78 1.70 1.87 1.95 2.02 2.00 2.00 No. of Adult Females 1.20 1.74 2.40 1.82 2.10 2.11 2.00 2.08 1.65 1.92 2.20 1.95 No. of Children 1.10 .53 .90 .77 .60 1.11 .70 .87 .85 .82 .80 .82 -Total Labor Force 4.00 4.53 5.60 4.72 4.90 5.00 4.40 4.82 4.45 4.76 5.00 4.77 Percent of Labor Force . Male 42.5 49.9 41.1 45.1 44.9 35.6 38.6 38.8 43.8 42.5 40.0 41.9 Female 30.0 38.4 42.8 38.6 42.9 42.2 45.5 43.2 37.1 40.3 44.0 40.9 Children 27.5 11.7 16.1 16.3 12.2 22.2 15.9 18.0 19.1 17.2 16.0 17.2 Percent of Total Hours/Person Hale Adults Fanm work 48.1 62.5 70.4 61.5 53.3 74.0 87.6 71.4 50.8 67.7 77.6 66.1 Non-Farm Work 17.9 11.2 17.0 14.4 3.3 10.0 6.5 7.1 10.3 10.6 12.6 11.1 Off-Farm Work 34.0 26.3 12.6 24.1 43.4 16.0 5.9 21.5 38.9 21.7 13.8 22.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Female Adults Farm work 38.7 45.4 51.3 45.7 59.6 59.5 64.4 60.8 50.0 53.0 57.6 53.5 Non-Fanm Work 36.9 36.0 34.5 35.7 5.9 15.2 20.2 14.1 20.1 24.9 27.5 24.5 Off-Farm Work 24.4 18.6 14.2 18.6 34.5 25.3 15.4 25.1 29.9 22.1 14.9 22.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Children Farm Work 59.9 59.8 74.1 63.4 83.7 85.0 89.5 85.7 68.6 75.1 81.4 74.7 Non-Farm Work 40.1 40.2 25.9 36.6 16.3 15.0 10.5 14.3 31.4 24.9 18.6 25.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Computed by converting figures of Table 3.12 to percentages. 85 for both rainfed and irrigated farms. This demonstrates clearly that farm labor needs to be first priority even when off-farm employment may exist. Nonfarm enterprises in the household constitute a minor allocation of one's time on the average for all three labor classes. However, about a quarter of one's time is engaged in nonfarm enterprises for female adults on the average and reaches more than a third for the women on rainfed farms. In the latter case, nonfarm work involves more time than off-farm employment which is the reverse situation fbr the adult women on irrigated farms. It is clear that farm work takes precedence for all classes of labor and that off-farm employment diminishes as the demands for farm labor increase with farm size. 3.5.3.4 Total Hours Worked Per Family Worker by Labor Class Because of the size of family labor force varies across the farm size group as pointed out earlier, the computation of total hours worked per farm family worker by sex and age was made to permit a comparison of family labor contribution to farm, nonfarm and off-farm activities by type and size of farm (Table 3.14). The hours worked per person as reported in Table 3.14 also permit some observations about the extent of underemployment in the rural vil- lages under study. One can arbitrarily assume an 8 hour working day and convert the hourly figures to daily figures as has been done in Table 3.14. The result for all households is an average of 174 days for adult males, 163 days for adult females and 106 days for children. By further assuming 20 working days per month for 12 months or 240 work days per year, these figures compute to an employment level of 73 percent for adult males, 68 percent for adult females and 44 percent for children. .mzmc Lsoglm ou mcpago>cou an Np.m mpnmp Eogm umuaasou "mugsom 86 we Fe we Ne me me ov me me mm mm we cmgupwsu mm mm mm mu mm mm me an me No on ma wpmsou mu “N as cu mm on Pm we 85 mm mm mm mp8: me> \xtoz sag cum to “c8828; mop mm cop N—p mop mop mo opp PPP mm “up o- cmcupwgu mop amp ~o_ _m_ mm_ amp map “up mop map mop omm apnea; e~_ amp mop m- Nn_ Nm— —~F amp sup Fmp mo_ Nm— wa2 ucmexopnsm Peach -- -- -- -- -- u- u- u- u- 1- -- .. cmcupwsu mm mm on em ow om ow Fe —m Pm Pm om w_mEmu ow mm mm mm mm P? “N F“ me mm me he m—mz xcoz Egmmu$$o KN wF om mm m— FF ep mp Pa em Pm «a :mcupwzu ow me oe mm mm mm am oF mm _m cm mm mpmswm m_ mm mp mp up up NF m mm mm mp mm mpg; xcoz Egmwcoz am _m cm nu mm mm mm mm on mm as we cmgupwgu um ow mm pm um No. am cop mu mu on ma mpwsmm mp map m—F Pm mmp amp sup mm mop _m_ mop mm o_mz xcoz scum \comgma\mamo mmmco>< ._< 4 z m _F< 5 z m FF< A z m mma_u an magma PF< mace; umpmmwccm mecca umwcvmm ucmEAoFQEm mo mxuo magma uopamegH ucm vmmcwmm .mNPm Egan can mmmpu Loam; .xgoz 4o was» An comgma gm; pewsxopasm pmzcc< mo axon caozum mumsmxogaa< ¢—.m mpnmh 87 Perhaps surprisingly, the highest employment level for both men and women is found on small rainfed farms where a disproportionate amount of time is spent in both nonfarm and off-farm employment. The weakness of the assumptions and the tentative nature of the conclusion are readily conceded. Rural people do not behave in a regimen of 8 hour days and 20 days of work each month. The demands and opportuni- ties for employment vary widely among seasons as do the family commit- ments to nonincome-generating activities. Furthermore, in the account- ing of total hours expended, many hours spent in routine household activities (especially for female adults) were omitted in the survey method. Some of these issues will be addressed in subsequent sections. Again, figures in Table 3.13 reveal the important role of female labor to the performance of farm work. Farm work represents the primary allocation of women's time when compared with nonfarm income generating activities and with off-farm employment. It would appear that the greater the demands for farm work, the higher is the proportion of women's time spent in this activity. The proportion is higher for ir- rigated farms than for rainfed farms and the proportion tends to in- crease with farm size. Children show their significant role in farm work as the portion of their total hours worked which also tends to increase with farm size. However, their efforts in nonfarm enterprises appear to be tied to the commitment to this area by the adult females. 0n rainfed farms, non- farm work takes a higher share of the time spent for both children and women than is true on irrigated farms. 88 3.5.4 Seasonal Distribution of Family Labor Use The seasonality of the family labor utilization is shown in Figures 3.5 to 3.7 for three farm size classes of the rainfed farm and Figures 3.8 to 3.10 for three farm size classes of irrigated farms. These figures were prepared using data from Tables 3.15 and 3.16 which sum- marizes the hourly monthly allocation of family labor to farm, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm work for rainfed and irrigated farms. The farm labor profile reflects the growing cycle of rice for which its planting and harvesting make up the peak periods in labor demand. In general, the nursery can be prepared in either May or June, while June or July is primarily for land preparation, transplanting and harvesting. October and November are the harvesting and threshing periods for the middle maturing variety of nonglutinous, while the long- maturing variety of glutinous rice is harvested and threshed in November and December. August and September become the waiting period involving less labor demand activities for crop care (e.g., weeding, draining). After the production of rice is complete in December, the family labor time spent on farm enterprises declines rapidly starting from January to April (i.e., during the dry season). The rainy season average of 530 hours per household in the rainy season for all farms and all labor is 6 percent above the annual average of 502 hours, whereas the dry season average of 442 hours is only 88 percent of the annual monthly average (Table 3.17). As would be expected, the seasonal work load is more uniformly distributed on irrigated farms than on rainfed farms because of the opportunity to utilize more family labor for crop production during some months of the dry season. The dry season index was 84 for rainfed farms and 92 for irrigated farms. 89 En“. 531:0: ace: etaa-cco Etna emecwaz _Fa2m ago too m__c02a tones »_.Eau m.m 8239.8 a a z \ o m < a a z taco: oo— cam com oov com com cos L30: Non-Farm m Off—Farm Park Farm W Hour 7' 800 O O l\ 600 v . "3‘" 0°. . :‘WQQ . - . . O 0’: O O lid o'O'o 0 0.0.0 o o 0, '0‘: O. O ' c .0 A 'a :0 l. ‘ 0 .0 c 9 o 'y 0 ‘4 ’. ' 0:66. I O .. a" 90: O A 500 9" Q O I,‘ 0.0.. 9 \f’ ‘. 0.9. 400 M Month Figure 3.6 Family Labor Profile for the Medium Rainfed Farm 91 Esau uwmcpmx magma on» so» mpweocm Loam; »p_sau ~.m mesa?“ z m a o z o m < a stag gummy etau-=o= nunnu sec: Egamuwuc z coco; cop cow can now com com :os com com eaoz seem vmumowccfi FFmEm mnp Low mpweoea Locum apwEmm w.m weamwm < .2. u. a o z o m < H. w 2 5:02 maze: Ea... § Eemucoz _.l||_ {22.583 _ Off-Farm Work [:1 Non-Farm 1% Farm 93 . \ . . w . . , - .'~“§.o. '0“ V D . \ w o 0 0 .0.0.\ 0.. O O ' C \ p.a.§.o.0. .x‘ . '.‘.‘.0.\.‘_C' ._ .‘o'o‘ O v v r ‘.‘o.a..‘.0.009,4 V ’0“. 8° ‘0'0'08 '.§.o.:.:‘:O.o’... 9 9 0 ’ s a ‘ O Q o". ‘ s o 4 9 O o 9 .. \ o o :‘70'0’IJ90” f k J C p {at v ' ‘ ;.;.;.;;.:.;s: V ,9“, o‘.\s. -,‘.*.‘$¢;~‘c.' r:\’.’.‘.¢.\‘.i \ x\ 5' ‘ V .541 V .\ ‘\‘. 3‘:“\" ‘ §:““ .1 i\ “1‘35 \\ "9.9.9.0" \ $319351 V 9‘ .°.‘I‘:. \ .‘:Q:v';‘ .‘ Q , .IV . » r.‘ n i it‘s“: ‘ §:‘::1 :33? k. ' 33W: ‘1 "9‘ G“ ‘:\“\“0‘ \ “...:,‘ 5‘ .‘, a .P.’ L Hours I i I I I A I I O O O O O O O C) C) O O O O O |\ to LO Q 1"") N r— M Month Figure 3.9 Family Labor Profile for the Medium Irrigated Farm 94 22:35:33; " a ‘ \i roe“:0' 0.:‘4 ‘ ‘ . ages: \ ~ ‘ k 1W1“ L421: 5:? .~.- )3: x L 0 fi. - .‘ Q E E 4:- eu to :01? u. u. . .43 :4 I I u— : E '0- O a O 2 LL rr‘ \ 0:1 if. '- f IW mm 0. \\\\ \ I\\\\\\\ \\\\\8‘ Hour: r 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 J F M A D Figure 3.10 Family Labor Profile for the Large Irrigated Farm Medium 95 Page» u be "zoo: sowmueeo u oo “mmzoaomucm sneeze: u oz "some n o "upoz ooe oez ooo oo_ _~o oeo zoo zoo ooo Ne, oo ooz oNo om. one eoz toe Noe ooo moo ooz mme em, Po. on. ooe Neo eo_ moo ooe ooo eoz ozo oez moo em. op. om, one .o ope em. ooe om. ozo om, eoo ooz mm, o__ ooo _oo ozo ooz oeo moo mo __z oo_ moo o_o oe_ owe moo moo eo_ oo_ zoo oeo mo eoz ope ooo oo .o. oeo Noe moo mo. eon Poo moo ooz oeo ooo eoo oo oo o_e moo on No o_o moo .zo oo_ zoo ooe No. me Now >oz moo mo eo. eoo poo oo F_N moo ozo oo oez ooN ooo No oNN omm eoo ooe mo oez oNN ooe oe mo. oeN _ee oo opp oeN ooe moo ooz oo_ oom ooe oo oo_ Nzo ooo oz oo_ Noe ooe oo oo eoN ooe moo ooz oNN oee eoo Foe mo oom Noo mo N_z moo ozo oo_ oo moo one No_ no moo ooo ooe oo eo o_o ooo ee mo mom eoe eo zoo ope ooe owe mo oom zoo ooe oo oo_ ooN zoo oe oo. New moo oz eo ooN moo oo zoo eez zez oo oo oz o ee oo oz o oo oo oz o ee oo oz o zoooz Ammo msoeo emooeoz Fee oozo oooeo Aooo sooeoz zozo .zesm mmopo msz Egoo on neosmmoo: own one: umoom>< somo umecomm «cu mo ago: Eomoimwo use omegaomucm Egomcoz .Eooo o» goon; AFPEmo mo copuznzoumzo Focomomm m~.m mean» 6 9 .pmuou u .E. 3733 Emwumwo n no mmmtqgmucw Emwco: u mz "Exam. u m ”muoz mmo opp ooo eom moo oo om_ mmm ooe oo _o_ oom ooo moo om mom ooe Noe Foo mm oom eoe mo _m Pom ome oo om mom ooe mm_ oo oom ooz moe eo_ om mmm oom om om mmm ezo emo mm mom ooe oez o mom ooo eom mo em mom eoe em mo mmm omm oo_ em eom ome mmz oo oom ooo oeo moo om ooe moo oe oe moo mmo moo oe ome ooo oom o_ oom goo .No oo_ oe oom mee mo mo oom eoo oo oo oom omo omm mz oom ooz moe mo oo Pom ooe om oo emm moo mo mo omm oom om_ om mom ooo .Pe om om mom omm ze oo oom eom oe mom omm moe mmz oz omm ooo omo mo_ oe mom moo mo oe ooe moo oo oo mme omo ooo m_ mom ooe ooo _m_ om ome moo eo me moe mmo oo mm moo ooo oom oe eom Poo ooe mo oe mom eee Fe Fe mom moe mo oo eom mmo oom oe mom zoo mme mm oo oom ome om oo mom ooe om eo oom omm oom om eo. moz oo oo oz o me oo oz o eo oo oz o ee oo oz o ooooz as 25$ 8835 :e do: wot: a: 538,. do: :55 ooozu «Now Egoo on uzozmmooz omo goo: umoLm>< Egoo cmuomooom mg» mo xooz Eoooummo use mooooomucm soomcoz .Eooo cg goon; opoEoo oo coouaaogummo Pooooomm m~.m menu» 97 Table 3.17 Monthly Composition of Total Labor Utilization and Seasonal Index of Average Total Family Labor by Farm Type Percent of Monthly Total Seasonal Index* Farm Labor Nonfarm Labor Off-Farm Labor A11 Labor Month RF IR ALL RF IR ALL RF IR ALL RF IR ALL May 51 68 59 33 15 24 l6 l7 17 80 87 83 Jun 65 73 69 19 9 14 16 18 17 96 99 98 Jul 74 72 73 10 6 9 16 22 19 150 120 137 Aug 63 73 69 21 8 14 16 19 17 97 109 102 Sep 50 64 56 31 19 26 l8 17 18 90 83 87 Oct 54 67 60 33 15 25 13 18 15 110 94 102 Nov 72 70 71 15 9 12 13 21 17 112 106 109 Dec 65 70 68 21 6 13 14 24 19 126 131 129 Rainy 63 70 66 22 10 17 15 20 17 108 104 106 Season Jan 38 67 52 33 9 22 29 24 26 77 76 76 Feb 36 72 56 31 5 17 33 23 27 75 94 84 Mar 34 62 48 38 16 27 28 22 25 91 92 91 Apr 37 59 48 34 19 27 29 22 25 95 108 101 Dry Season 36 64 51 34 13 23 30 23 26 84 92 88 Total 56 68 62 25 ll 18 19 21 20 100 100 100 Year Hrs./Mo./ Household May-Dec 346 359 352 120 53 87 83 1-0 91 549 512 530 Jan-Apr 156 294 224 147 58 103 127 103 115 430 455 442 Total Year 283 337 309 129 55 92 98 101 99 510 493 502 *Percent of annual average per month. RF = average of 39 rainfed farms; IR = average of 38 irrigated farms; ALL = average of 77 farms. 98 The composition of labor according to the monthly allocation is pre- sented in both Tables 3.17 and 3.18. The proportion that off-farm labor is of all labor holds reasonably constant at 15 to 20 percent during the rainy season and jumps to between 25 and 27 percent during the dry season months (Table 3.17). This proportion averages somewhat higher on ir- rigated farms than on rainfed farms as is also the case for farm labor time as a percent of all labor. As can be seen by the seasonal indices of Table 3.18, the seasonal fluctuation of farm labor and off-farm fellow a similar profile in the rainy season. This is probably explained by the fact that off-farm employment is characterized by a heavy farm re- lated work component during this season. The share of total work to both off-farm and nonfarm activities increase substantially during the dry season months for all farm size groups. However, the share of nonfarm work tends to be inversely related to farm size and the share of total labor to off-farm work is directly related to farm size during the dry season. The small farm peak rainy season months fbr off-farm employment are July, August, November and December with monthly indices of 130, 111, 123 and 121, respectively. The medium sized farm peak during season months for off-farm employment are July and December with index numbers of 125 and 135, respectively. For large farms, the only month of the rainy season with above average labor commitment to off-farm labor activi- ties is the month of July. Unless there is substantial under-employment of family labor and unless the nonfarm employment is largely hired labor for farm work, it is difficult to explain why the peak off-farm labor month is superimposed on the month of July which is already the peak rainy season month for farm work for all farm size classes. Of course, it is well to remember that the index numbers are relative measures and 99 Table 3.18 Monthly Composition of Family Labor Use and Seasonal Indices of Monthly Family Labor by Labor Type and Size of Farm Farm Labor Nonfarm Labor Off-Farm Labor A11 Labor Item 5 M L S M L S M L S M L Hrs./Mo./Household May-Dec 289 348 427 76 88 97 152 85 45 517 521 569 Jan-Apr 208 224 246 101 96 119 147 115 85 456 435 450 Total Year 262 306 366 84 91 104 150 95 58 496 492 528 Number of Farms 20 37 20 20 37 20 20 37 20 20 37 20 Month Percent of May Monthly Total 48 60 67 26 22 25 26 18 8 100 100 100 Annual Average 65 84 85 111 103 113 60 78 67 71 86 89 Jun Monthly Total 57 71 77 13 15 14 30 14 9 100 100 100 Annual Average 107 115 100 76 84 64 101 73 74 100 101 90 Jul Monthly Total 61 76 81 9 7 10 30 17 9 100 100 100 Annual Average 150 166 164 71 49 74 130 125 121 131 137 142 Aug Monthly Total 54 70 79 12 15 15 34 15 6 100 100 100 Annual Average 101 119 114 71 84 78 111 84 53 99 106 101 Sep Monthly Total 52 58 58 20 27 31 28 15 11 100 100 100 Annual Average 97 78 68 118 123 129 90 66 78 98 84 81 Oct Monthly Total 52 61 64 25 24 27 23 15 9 100 100 100 Annual Average 95 102 98 143 132 144 73 80 88 96 103 106 Nov Monthly Total 60 70 83 7 16 12 33 14 5 100 100 100 Annual Average 127 120 134 45 9D 70 123 77 48 112 106 112 Dec Monthly Total 59 62 83 12 17 10 29 21 7 100 100 100 Annual Average 139 124 168 88 111 71 121 135 95 125 124 160 Rainy Season Monthly Total 56 67 75 15 17 17 29 16 8 100 100 100 Annual Average 110 113 117 90 97 93 101 89 78 104 106 108 Jan Monthly Total 52 44 65 15 26 21 33 30 14 100 100 100 Annual Average 81 52 71 74 102 81 89 115 93 82 74 76 Feb Monthly Total 48 55 65 16 17 20 36 28 15 100 100 100 Annual Average 78 83 63 80 85 69 101 134 91 85 93 67 Mar Monthly Total 41 51 47 27 26 29 32 23 24 100 100 100 Annual Average 71 77 59 144 133 126 95 112 186 91 94 86 Apr Monthly Total 42 53 47 28 21 32 30 26 21 100 100 100 Annual Average 87 77 76 183 102 183 107 122 214 109 91 112 Dry Season Monthly Total 46 51 55 22 22 26 32 27 19 100 100 100 Annual Average 79 73 67 120 105 114 98 121 147 92 88 85 All Year Monthly Total 53 62 69 17 19 20 30 19 11 100 100 100 Annual Average 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: S I small farms; M = medium farms; L - large farms. 100 that in absolute terms, the hours committed to off-farm employment are inversely related to farm size. The nonfarm enterprise, in terms of labor use, behave similarily for all farm size classes. With some exception (during the months with high demand for farm labor), nonfarm enterprise labor constitutes roughly 20 percent of the total family labor employed month-by-month for all farm size classes throughout the year. However, viewed in terms of a seasonal profile, nonfarm enterprises are used to take up the slack in the family labor supply not commited to farm work. The months with above average hours utilized for nonfarm activities correspond to those months with lowest farm labor commitment and vice versa. 3.5.5 Variability in the Monthly Distribution of Family Labor Use The seasonal fluctuations in family labor use can be used as a proxy for the seasonal flow of family income. It is an imperfect proxy because every hour of labor expended does not yield the same return. Neverthe- less, it is reasonable to conclude that families with wide fluctuations in seasonal employment will have more difficult cash flow management problems than will families with uniform year-round employment. Using the total sample to classify the farms, the coefficient of variation (CV), measuring the ratio of the standard deviation of the monthly average to the annual average, was computed fbr the different farm classes and summarized in Table 3.19. In all cases, the CV re- duced as additional work activities are added to the distribution of farm work. For all farms, the CV is 0.30, 0.20, 0.24 and 0.17 for farm work, farm work plus nonfarm employment, farm work plus off-farm work and the total labor utilization distribution, respectively. Off-farm employ- ment contributes less to smoothing monthly labor use fluctuation than Mean and Coefficient of Variation for Monthly Family Labor 101 Table 3.19 Allocation to Farm Work, Farm Plus Nonfarm, Farm Plus Off-Farm and Total Labor Use by Farm Type and by Farm Size Type of Farm All Item Rainfed Irrigated Small Medium Large Farms No. of Farms 39 38 20 37 20 77 Monthly Average Farm Work 283 337 262 306 366 309 Farm + Nonfarm 412 392 346 397 470 402 Farm + Off- 394 439 412 401 425 409 Farm All Labor 510 493 496 492 528 502 Coefficient of Variation Farm Work .45 .19' .26 .29 .36 .30 Farm + Nonfarm .27 .14 .17 .20 .25 .20 Farm + Off- .31 .19 .23 .23 .30 .24 Farm All Labor .21 .15 .17 .17 .23 .17 102 does the nonfarm (cottage industry type) employment because of the particularly high positive correlation with farm employment, especially in the rainy season, as observed earlier. It is apparent that one of the advantages of irrigation is to Open the opportunity for a more unifbrm use of family labor than is possible on rainfed farms. The CV of 0.19 for farm work on irrigated farms is less than the CV of 0.21 for employment from all sources on rainfed farms. Because of the limited farming opportunities in the dry season for the rainfed farms, heavy reliance is placed on off-farm and nonfarm employment to utilize family labor throughout the year and consequently, to reduce the erratic flow of family earnings. 3.5.6 Labor Requirement for Crops The labor requirements for individual crops differs depending on the activities to be performed. For the rainfed farm, the labor uses (in terms of hours) for producing one variety of glutinous and non- glutinous by activities are presented in Appendix Tables 1 and 2. To produce one rai of either glutinous or nonglutinous rice, about 104 hours of labor input or 69 hours of male labor and 35 hours of female labor are used on the average. Land preparation and planting activi- ties account for approximately 40 percent of total labor use, while harvesting activity accounts for 36 percent ot total labor use. Thus, during the time these activities take place, farmers having a small labor force relative to their operational farm size may be required to recruit additional labor outside their family. For the irrigated farm, the labor requirements for individual crops in both wet and dry seasons are shown in Appendix Tables 7 to 17. Again, for the production of rice, the land preparation, transplanting 103 and planting, and harvesting are still the most labor consuming activi- ties. However, the amount of labor used in the production of rice in this irrigated area varies between the two different types of land preparation practiced by the farmers. The production of rice with the buffalo plowing uses more labor input than the one with machine tiller plowing. For instance, to produce one rai of glutinous rice in the wet season, 134 hours of labor are needed for buffalo land plowing, while the faster tiller cultivated glutinous rice needs only 106 hours of labor. Tobacco and glutinous corn are more labor intensive crops than rice, requiring 373 and 190 hours for one rai of tobacco and corn, respectively. 3.5.7 Crop Labor by Source There are three main sources of labor for crop production: the family, exchange labor from other neighboring households and hired labor. In general, labor for crop production is drawn more from family than from other sources. For the rainfed farm, the family supplies 80 percent of the total labor in the production of rice. In the case of ir- rigated farms, the share of family labor in the production of the buffalo cultivated rice in both wet and dry seasons is larger than in the pro- duction of the tractor cultivated rice. The family supplies about 74 and 61 percent of the total labor use in the production of buffalo and tractor cultivated rice, respectively (Table 3.20). Exchange labor, the comnon phenomenon in earlier times, now provides a relatively small portion of total labor use for rice production in both rainfed and irrigated areas. It accounts for only 4.4 percent of total labor in the production of rainfed rice and represents from 4.2 to 5.2 percent of the total labor for irrigated rice production. Exchange 1(34 n.em v.4 m.—o ~.m~ ~.¢ o.vm —.cm m.e o.zo e.z~ ~.m «.mm o.o_ e.e c.oo pouch —.z~ m.mm o.oc v.o— ~.mz e.~c m.o— m.m~ m.pc m.m~ o.o~ o.oo c.m w.mp ~.m~ smooch —.~m o.e o.xm «.mn o.o ~.co «.mm e.m m.mm e.om m.o F.Nm o.m~ F.N n.mo uom>oox - - o.oo— - - o.oo— - oo o.oo— - - o.cop - - oo— menu aoou N.Fm m.~ w.me m.we ~.m m.wc «.om m.m m.oe _.mm m.e c.~z ~.ev m.m n.Om acopaxucozaocooh m.vo - ~.m «.mm - m.mm ~.mo - m.v ~.o~ - w.cm ~.o~ - w.om :o—uooooooa vcoo - - c.oo_ - - o.oop - - o.oc— - - c.oop - - cop moomoaz vooo: oocoguxu »_m2oo twee: wocozuxm »_o5oo coo_z mocozoxu »__Eoo cwooz monogoxu xszoo veto: oocaguxm apoEoo -oooo Lemme» oooooo: -oooo oeooooo oooo oozzoo ooooeox eooo o_ooooo moooosoooe cvbm,ouW coocom >o: two: mum: cowmmm um: ELoo uwuomooo_ moon ecooum um: ztoo ooooooo scoo vmuomooon can cooc_om yo meow—>euu< ace ouoaom ma cozuuzvooa ou—m co moo: Lona; noon mmaucwuooa o~.m w—nah 105 labor is still used extensively for the threshing of rice in both areas, but is not practiced in the other crops. Normally, the households will keep record of the exchange labor days which have been received and given in order that days given be equal to days received. There is very little indebtedness of exchange labor duty carried over from one month to another. Hired labor is necessary to supplement family labor for the critical periods of rice production in both rainfed and irrigated areas. It ac- counts for 16 percent-of all labor in the production of rainfed rice. The share of hired labor increases to the total labor in the production of tractor cultivated rice relative to buffalo cultivated rice. About 21 and 34 percent of total labor in the production of buffalo and tractor cultivated rice, respectively, are provided by hired labor. For minor crop production like tobacco and glutinous corn, most of the labor input is obtained from the family labor. 0n the average, rain- fed and irrigated farmers growing glutinous and nonglutinous rice obtain crop labor from those three main sources. 3.6 Household Consumption Patterns Household expenditures will be discussed to gain understanding of certain aspects of the family consumption pattern which are needed to specify coefficients for the right-hand side of the linear programming model to fbllow. These household consumption patterns will be treated as cash, expenditures whether purchased or homegrown and will include all outflows not directly related to income generating enterprises for farming and nonfarm activities, plus the value of farm and nonfarm pro- ducts consumed if they are drawn from household production. Farm pro- duction and nonfarm expenses are excluded from this analysis to make 106 them more useful in LP modelling inasmuch as the gross margin budgets take into account the production expenses. The family consumption expenditures are classified into two main categories, food and nonfood expenditures. 3.6.1 Food Expenditures Since rice is the staple food of Thailand, it is the major component of food expenditures. Normally, each household grows its own rice and sells it only if there is a surplus beyond the consumption requirement. The value of rice consumed is treated as a food expenditure and is com- puted using the amount of rice consumed based on the household monthly report and the sale price of rice in the local market. Other items con— sumed besides rice are included as "other food" expenditures and include such items as meat, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fat and oil, condiments and food away from home. The value of these items consumed, if they are drawn from family farm production, are imputed based on the farm prices. These fOOd expenditures have been summarized by farm size class for rain- fed and irrigated farms in Table 3.21. It can be seen that the food ex- penditures account for at least 50 percent of the total family consump- tion expenditures for the total farm sample. On the average, rice is the main item accounting for 44 and 37 percent of the total family consumption for the rainfed and irrigated farms, respectively. This indicates that in relative terms the rainfed farm household expenditure on rice is higher than the irrigated farm household. It may be explain- ed in part by the observation that on the average the rainfed farm house- holds have relatively lower income than the irrigated farms and will spend a larger proportion of their income on the basic or staple foods, namely rice. The irrigated farm households who have more discretionary 1(17 .oucocoucoos m:_o:o; .xau .ooouumemc o.oom mwo.m_ o.oop www.c— o.oop com.n_ o.oc— aeo.mJ o.oo— ooe.~_ o.ocm o~p.m— o.oo_ omo.~— o.oom wom.o_ o< —~.m opaop 108 income, both relatively and in absolute terms than rainfed farm house- holds and, hence, have more to spend on other things besides rice. The values of food expenditures proportional to the total expendi- tures for both rainfed and irrigated farms tend to decrease slightly as farm size increases (Table 3.21). However, the difference between medium and large sized farms with regard to the share of the family budget for food is very slight. The higher budget share for food on small farms may be explained by the low income elasticity of food and the lower expected income for families with small farms than for families with larger holdings. However, it is difficult to explain why the absolute level of food expenditure on small farms for both rainfed and irrigated villages is the highest of all categories except for large rainfed farms. Of course, the absolute level of consumption depends in part on the size and composition of the consuming households. The average household compo- sition by sex and age classifications and by farm type were presented earlier in this chapter. It was noted that larger farms averaged more members in the household than small farms with the exception of large irrigated farm households. Consequently, converting household food con- sumption expenditure to a per capita or per member of the labor force basis further highlights the higher absolute level of food consumption in monetary terms for the small farm households and the large farms in the irrigated area. If the higher food consumption expenditure situa- tion had occurred only on the small farms, one might have been suspicious that there was a systematic under-reporting bias in the value of home produced consumption or perhaps an over-reporting of the value of pur- chased rice. Such a situation would have resulted in a higher total average rice consumption figure for small farms because the reported 109 value of rice consumed exceeds the value of home produced rice only on the small farm. With these findings there is the methodological question of whether the reported averages and their seasonal distribution for individual farm classifications should be used in the linear programming analysis or whether it would be better to use standardized annual and monthly distribution per capita for all farm sizes for both rainfed and irrigated farms. For lack of persuasive arguments to do otherwise, the average figures, as reported in the survey, were incorporated in the LP model with the realization that unequal consumption expenditure requirements for different modelling situations result in constraints that are some- what regressive against farm size. 3.6.2 Nonfood Expenditures Family nonfbod expenditures in both relative and absolute terms are lower for the rainfed than the irrigated farms and are positively cor- related with farm size (Table 3.21). Family nonfood expenditures of the irrigated farm households as a percent of total (47 percent) are higher than in the case for the rainfed farm households (38 percent). Part of this explanation is that the irrigated farm households have a higher income than rainfed farm households as pointed out earlier. When the matter of farm size was examined, it was found that the share of nonfood expenditures in the total family consumption expendi- tures by farm size class in both rainfed and irrigated areas increase when size of farm increases (see Table 3.21). This is as would be expect- ed because nonfood expenditures may be regarded as a residual to fbod expenditure in the typical rural household. The inverse relationship between percent of the budget spent for food and size of farm has been 110 established. Consequently, the opposite relationship would hold for nonfood expenditures. The family consumption expenditures on the average of all rainfed farm households varies monthly as can be seen in Figure 3.11 which was prepared from data summarized in Table 3.22. This seasonal variation of family food as well as nonfood expenditures may be related to the flow of household income and is also related to the degree of household participation in various local religious and social events. For instance, January and April were the peaks for family nonfood expenditures for the rainfed farm households. Since these periods are when heavy local activi- ties related to social and religious events take place such as Happy New Year celebrations for January and the Song Karn Day occasion (the old, traditional Thai New Year Day) in April, various kinds of entertainment (e.g., open-air movies, theaters, muscial performances), trade fairs and carnivals commonly take place in that period. Accordingly, many rainfed farmers may dispose of rice in December and January so that money is available to help them and their family members to participate and spend more on all those events mentioned above. The peak expenditures on food items for the all rainfed farms appear in August and February. August is known by Thai Buddhists as the suc- cessive period from very late July when the Buddhist monks have to con- centrate on learning and practicing the teaching of Buddha and are not allowed to stay overnight outside the monks' resident temple. Thus, in the spirit of Buddhist practice, the farmers have more opportunities and willingness to offer meals to the monks either at the nearby temple or by invitation to the home during this time. This may cause the rainfed farms to willingly have more food expenditures for this period. U Non-Food Expenditures Food Expenditures 7g: N 1f \ . N. \ SN .“ ‘%>\:>\\\:\§5 \ . \\\:%\\§\\\\\\‘_\\ baht — I I. L L I J o o o o o o c:' o o o o o o o ‘1‘ N as IN m m_ ,— r- .— Month Figure 3.11: Season Distribution of Household Consumption Expenditures for the Rainfed Farm 112 mamom>< omo.z pom.~ wwm mom mmm mmm Foe mmm mmo mum nwm New mzzpcoz oee.- mNF.m— emm.—_ www.0z omm.e mmm.o eem.e mo_.m ome.~ emn.m eee.“ mom.m Pouch mm_._ omm._ mmz._ mmo.z umm one emm mew omm own mom owo Lae Noo.p mmo.z mum aoo new mom me mmm mmm eon omm oem on: emo.z omm.z mec.p emo._ Nee mme ooe mam «an em“ mew mmo omo oe_.~ omm.m emo.z em—._ mne mpm mwe moe moo mph ppm meo one mmo.m oom.z oom._ mmm wee mum oom mmm mmm mme mum mew owe mmo._ wom._ eeo._ mum mam mme ome pow coo mow mom ewe >oz mno.F mum.z coo.e New one mmm mme mmm mmo mm“ emu moo ago new oo_.P «no em“ 0mm mme mum oez mom eon mmm mmm new mom omo.p mmo.z emu mwm New moe mep ewe mew mum mNo mo< m_o.P new.” mam emu eon mmm mmm emp mew .mw mom “mm pow mmo._ omN.m moo.p omm eee pmm mum mop Pam mom Nwe emo cow Nmm n_m.m mum meo.z com com zem mwm mmo Noe zmm eon on: msooo mmooo Ezoowz zeosm osooo mmooo somcmz FFoEm oELoo «moo; Enoumz mesm coco: e_< __< Fm< omoopoucmnxm pooch owespoucmaxm uoomcoz omoopoucmaxm vooo emozooooz ooo ozoo "oooo goose mNPm Eooo on msooo twosome we» mo omoouovcmaxu compassocou uFocmozoz —o:ooomm NN.m mpnmh 113 Relatively higher family food expenditures in February may be caused by the flow of household income from rice sales in January. In cases of all irrigated farms, the average family expenditures on food and nonfood items was 615 and 546 baht per month, respectively (Table 3.23 and Figure 3.12). Assuming and using these average figures as the norm, there are only three months of June, July and December for wet season (May to December) and most of the dry season, that the ir- rigated farmers' family food expenditures are above the norm. This may relate to the Buddhist point of view that men should devote one time in their life in monkhood in order to learn and practice Buddha's preaching. June and July are the traditional periods for farmers to prepare for and celebrate the occasion of their sons approaching the age of 20 years when they will become a monk. The next three months beginning from very late July to October is the Khao-Pan-Sa period (the period that most of the monks are not allowed to stay overnight outside their resident temple in order to keep focusing on learning and practicing Buddha preaching). The host farmers are likely to invite many of their friends and rela- tives to attend the event at home and at the temple as their guest and enjoy meals served by the host farm household family members. Thus, these two periods are expected to have relatively high food expenditures compared to the norm. The relatively high family food expenditures for the irrigated farmers for December and the rest of the dry season may consequently be caused by the flow of household income for December and January when the irrigated farmers tend to sell their wet season rice. The peaks for nonfood expenditures of the irrigated farm were in March and May as can be seen through Figure 3.12. Part of this explana- tion is that March is the period for many farmers to celebrate the 114 mmoom>< moo.o eem._ omp.m omo.o oem Nmm mom eee moo «Fm emm moo apnoea: mum.mp mum.eo com.me meo.m— mem.m mom.o omm.o mom.e omm.o mem.o moo.o moo.m oopoo om_.P mmo.p mmm.o mo_.o Nem mmm oeo mcm mew mew emu Noe oo< Nmm.p cum.e Foe.— NN—.o meo mmm mom ewe men «mo Nmo mmo on: mo~.o mm~.F omN.o mm~.z moo mum moo mmm «me one mom poo poo mo~._ mmm.p moo.o mmp.o oom mom mom mom me eoo mmm omo cow mem.p m—e.o mmo.— ooo.o mmm moo moo Pom moo moo mmm mmo owe mom.m wom.o moo.m omo.o mum can own eee mom mum ewe owe >oz pmo.. N—~.o mem oom ome mom moe eem emm emm mmm mmo poo moo emm moo Nmo Pom pom emu owe oem mmm owe Now now mem._ omo.o emp.o eoo._ Nmm mom mmo oom com com com owe m=< oop.p mmo._ Nom.p ooo.o Nme mmm omm Pom ewe mom NNo mmo moo mmo._ mmz._ omo.P mmm mme mmm Poe mom mmm eom mew owe com wem.z ome._ eoN.P mm—.o coo mmm mew oom mom eem Pom mew mo: oeooo moon; Samoa: m_msm osooo mmooo Eamuwz moosm meooo moon; somumz opoEm gpcoz ope .oco Fee 2: 3 d: mooopoucmoxm pouoo mmooomccmoxm cooecoz omoopoccmaxu coco goose mNmm sooo mo osooo empomoooo woe mo omooaoucmoxm composaocou u_o;wo:o: _o:omomm mN.m mpnmo [:1 Non-Food Expenditures % Food Expenditures 115 baht . 1200 - . \QN \ \~ N . \ NN \ 1100 - 900 - 700 — 500 - Season Distribution of Household Consumption Expenditures for the Irrigated Farm Figure 3-1 2 116 occasion of Ma-Kha-Boo-Cha, the day that the Buddha declared himself and gave his first preaching lesson to the people on that day. As Buddhist spirit, the farmers are supposed to see and listen to the monks' preach- ing and to offer necessary things such as candles, matches, flowers, cloth and medicine to the monks at the temple. Thus, the irrigated farmers are expected to have a relatively high nonfood expenditure in March as well as in May which is the most likely period fbr irrigated farmers to sell their dry season rice. However, it should be mentioned here that conclusions drawn from this section on the seasonal pattern of household family expenditures should be considered with care, for lack of data on some expected explanatory variables on family consumption expenditures such as the monthly flow of household incomes, income elasticity with respect to each type of food and nonfood items, values and preferences of both rain- fed and irrigated farm households. 3.7 Household Credit Use Khon Kaen farmers, like many Northeastern farmers, were found to borrow money to finance their expenditures in periods when they face a shortage of income. According to a study of wealth, income and credit in Khon Kaen [Chalamwong, 1981] conducted in the same study area, 74 percent of sample farm households borrowed (in cash or in kind) through- out the year. The average amount of borrowing per household per year was about 84,303. Approximately 48 percent of total farm households borrowing were found to concentrate during the period of prewet season planting (April to May). Part of this explanation is that the farmers need loans to pay for their farming as well as for the consump- tion needs just discussed. The same study also classified the use of 117 borrowing funds of the farm households into three main categories: for farm and nonfarm production, for purchasing of capital assets and for family consumption expenditures. Nearly 40 percent of the loans were used for productive purposes, while 35 and 25 percent of total loans were used for purchasing capital assets and for family consumption expenditures, respectively. With regard to the source of borrowing funds, on the average, about 45 percent of total loans were borrowed from the institutional lender, e.g., commercial bank, BAAC, cooperative, while 55 percent of loans came from farmers' friends and relatives, landlords and local merchants. Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperative (BAAC), one of the cheapest loan institutions subsidized by RTG, was the major institutional lender providing nearly 75 percent of the total institutional loan for the Khon Kaen farmers. 3.8 Models to be Developed Ideally, because each farm household represents a unique situation, a farm household plan using linear programming procedures would be pre- pared fbr each farm household in the sample. But it is not a practical approach from either a research or extension point of view [Sektheera, 1975]. Therefore, an alternative is to develop a composite farm model having the characteristics of the average of all farm households in each farm size group to represent small, medium and large farm sizes in the rainfed and irrigated situations. To be precise, three models of rain- fed farms and three models of irrigated farms will be developed to achieve the study purposes. 118 However, it should be borne in mind that the mix and level of activities obtained in the model solutions and the labor utilization pattern that supports them are not what one should expect to be optimum for a particular farm household. Rather, they represent the range of possibilities and their relative importance if results are aggregated to the full village level. CHAPTER 4 THE LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL Linear Programming which deals with the problem of optimum resource allocation among competing activities is used as the main analytical technique for fulfilling the objectives of the study. Details of the programming model are presented in this Chapter. 4.1 General FeatUres of the Model A linear programming model is basically composed of these three components: objective function, resource constraints and activities. It can be expressed mathematically in the following form: [Dorfman, 1958] Maximizing Z = 01X1 + ......................... + Can Subject to restrictions Allxl + A12X2 + .................... + AIan §_b] A21xl + A22X2 + .................... + AZan :_b2 Am1x] + A 2X2 + .................... + Amnxn fi-bn X > O i = l, 2, .............. ,n In matrix form, the model can be formulated as follows: [Heady and Candler, 1959] 119 120 1x Maximizing Z = C Subject to restriction AX §_B X 3_O where objective function to be maximized n x 1 vector of price and/or wage rate N x 1 vector of activity level m x n matrix of input-output coefficients G) > X ('5 N 11 m x 1 vector of resource restrictions The purpose is to solve for the level of decision variables, X1, X2, ...... Xn’ which maximizes the objective function subject to the restrictions that no X shall be negative and that the X's shall satisfy the set of resource constraints. However, in interpreting the LP solution, the following assumptions underlying linear programming analysis should be kept in mind. A pre- cise-solution of the problem under consideration can only be obtained from the LP model if 4 assumptions can be satisfied: (1) divisibility of activities and resources; (2) additivity and linearity of the acti- vities; (3) finiteness of alternative activities and the resource re- strictions; and (4) single-value expectation i.e. resource supplies, input-output coefficients and prices are known with certainty. (See Heady and Candler, 1959, p. 17-18.) In addition, in order to fit the problem in the linear programming scheme, it is required to assume that there is only one objective func- tion (2), either to be maximized or minimized on the part of entrepre- neurs or farmers. 121 4.2 StruCture of the LP Model The structure of the model is presented in the tableaux of Figure 4.1 and 4.2 which includes activities, constraints and input-output co- efficients. The structure of the LP model will be discussed as follows: 4.2.1 The Objective Function A number of objectives or goals have been hypothesized as a motive of the decision maker (farmer), such as maximizing profit, maximizing sale after obtained some minimum profit level, survival of the firm and security [Conner, 1954; Andrew, 1976]. Also, there have been several studies designed to test those hypo- theses. Such studies as those done by Yotopoulos [1968] and Hopper [1965] have generally concluded that the producers, even in the most backward areas, act as profit maximizers within some constraints. Other findings conclude that the peasant farmers seek security (DeWilde, 1967) and both security and profit maximization [Heyer, 1971; Norman, 1973] as their objectives. According to the above evidence and the researcher's experience in conducting surveys and doing research regarding Thai farmers, one should consider combined objectives of income maximization subject to land, labor and capital availability, including the security constraintlof subsistence food production (i.e. minimum rice consumption requirements to be produced by the farm household), and minimum family living expen- ditures. Therefore, the objective function of this model is composed of the net return obtained from farm and nonfarm enterprises, including net wage earned from off-farm work, less the cost of hired labor, cost 1222 sooo eoooooo ooo moeoz oo moo oo ooooooooo _.e oooooo msoguo - _Mwu Tm . . nH: ”ooooooooooo co oo..z ”6mm... lcmxrul mew ”Po-1.11 cooll. cceuqoououn .mvouceaouocom 123 sooo umpomoooo coo Pmuoz o4 on» $0 moopuooum N.e moomoo Sofia - a 7 .. a . p - Eu ”3:23:39 .3 2:3 :32 763. A xo ooooosooue Aoooozooooozoo 124 of borrowed capital and household expenditures. The objective function can be summarized as the summation of the following categories: (1) the net return to all included crop activities; (2) plus the net return to nonfarm enterprises done by the farmer and other family members such as silk weaving, mat and basket making and others; (3) plus the wages earned from selling out family labor in off- farm work; (4) less the cost of labor hired; (5) less the cost of borrow capital; (6) less the value of household consumption requirements. The first five categories of the objective function indicates the return to the household's land, labor and operating capital. It should be noted here that various supplementary farming enterprises and acti- vities such as poultry, pigs and the production of fruit and vegetables produced solely for home consumption were omitted because the capital and labor inputs used to produce them as well as money obtained from their sales were accounted for "off-line" in the right-hand side and in the objective function. An adjustment was made by adding the net value (gross margin) of these supplementary enterprises to the computer results in order to get a complete picture of all farm household income. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 present the net return (net above operating expenses excluding labor) or gross margins of the alternative enter- prises included in the model. They were computed on the basis of the output, prices and production expenses reported by the households in- volved in a supplementary survey conducted by the researcher after the 1980 rainy season rice crop and dry season rice crop had been harvested. 125 mum: Ne._ mm.o o.om~ e.mop owe uo2\on om NP-o mooxoz mo: oomcmopcoo oomcoopcou momxoz omcmou o~.m mm.z m.emm o.mo omm \o—n mm N_-o -cou mumm oxuoum compo oumonoo_vmcoou oo.o mm.m m.~m_ o.o_N omm moomooommn P ~_-— -uoov mco>om3 xpmm osmow ovowozo No.m oo.~ o.moe o.oN_ ooo Eooo\m.on comm p_.o.e.m._ xoomv meow—ouoomm wmoooomucm Eooocoz mm.~ mo.m op.emm em.mo~ com N.m omm F.N.o ouom ooocouommooz mo.N m~.e me.oee om.mom omo o.m omw F.N.m meme moocmuopu Bozo ooto ooto 9.; 2:9. :5 Hoes E 25:2. E E E 8.5 £25 8.2.... moumoou Lone; coopmm poou coouma omo acepooum cm on umz mcoaoomoo mooow poouoo cooumm eczema Pouch amz umz sooo ummcmoa mo momooompcm mo convex umz Lo conga: oooow ~.e moamo 126 .om—Pmo wcmzooz moooooom m ocooomm one u a “comomm um: u 2 "muoz mad mmd o.NN o.mN me umxoomBNNn $9.3m N N.N—4 umxmom Ne.o Nm.o o.meN e.mop oNe ao2\om one: on N.NF-p on: mo; emN e.eom N.oem 9on mummnioomn 38:. mo N.NTm Pine... :3qu uuooooo sooocoz mm; mm; mdmN o.oPN m.$e .3393 23 mNm 73.7: ES 22.335 oo.m om.N e.mmm.N o.ooe omm.m mN._ mNm.N o.mm.m.oo.m ouoeoo Nm.o oo.oz m.Nmo.e o.mmm oem.e m.oo mo o.m.m ouuoooo 2.3 em.o mm.e m.eme o.mNm ONo.m o.m oem o.mo.~.op.m mama moocmuapmcoz ES om.p om.e m.eoo o.mmm ONo.o o.m oem o.mp.o.o—.m muom moocouopmcoz mono No.m o.mmm o.mNm emm o.N oem _.pp.o.oo.m oz.ov mumm moocmpopo me _ mo.e o.mNm o.mmm ewm o.N oem o.mp.p.oo.m om.ov mama moocmpw_w oz.3 om.p NN.o o.mmo o.mee ooN.F o.m ooe z. m. p. N. _ worm ozocmpoomcoz E3 omnm ooo Tooo oeem oom; o.m ooe o. o.m N; 8:. mooozsoooz me o mo.m o.oom e.m_e emo._ o.N omm p. m._. N.F 52.3V mama moocouomu m_.m mo.m e.moo o.eeN eoo._ o.N omm m. m. o. N. _ om.3v mama moocouoew so; of; 22$ 9.2 2:9. :5 no.5 E ooozzo E E E 8.55 3.5 8.75.. poumoou Logo; cozpmm “moo sesame Loo mcopoopm on op pmz acmuoomoo mooom poouoo cooumm coopwm —ouoo umz pmz sooo cmpomogoH oo mooooowucm on cooumm umz go cmmooz omega N.e mono» 127 Ideally, the input-output coefficients for the model would have come directly from the Phase II survey which entailed continuous data collection over the year of study. Had this been possible, the supple- mentary survey would not have been needed unfortunately, although family expenses and receipts were recorded in the Phase II survey, they were not separated according to crop variety or field for crops nor were there detailed labor activities recorded. The shortcomings of collect- ing farm management planning data by recall interview and from a small sample are conceded. Efforts were made to validate the results by com- paring with published statistical reports and with other similar ongoing studies. This was not completely satisfactory in the case of rice yields because the government publications did not distinguish between glutinous and nonglutinous rice varieties and did not report yield by growing seasons. Input-output data for nonfarm enterprises are very sparse. Some inquiries on the economics of cottage industries were being made by other researchers in the Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project at the time of this researcher's field work. Their results were differ- ent in some cases from the results presented for nonfarm enterprises in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Their results were also based on recall interview and were not obtained from the villages of the immediate study. Con- sequently, the decision was made to use the answers provided by the cooperating households in the villages under study despite some dis- parities in the various data being collected. There were also a methodological problem in preparing gross mar- . gins budgets for enterprises utilizing locally grown raw materials. This applies to mat making which use locally grown reeds and basket 128 using locally grown bamboo. The cost of these raw materials could have been based on the value of labor used in gathering them. An alternative approach would be to cost them at the prices the users would estimate and would be received if sold or the amount they would be willing to pay if their collected supply was inadequate. There are difficulties with both approaches but the latter approach was chosen for this analy- sis. There appeared to be no reasonable way to standardize the labor used in raw material acquisition nor the source from which it was ob- tained. The labor reported in these budgets are the estimated require- ment after the raw materials were on hand. Tables 4.l and 4.2 summarize the detailed enterprise budgets pre- sented in the appendix. The planning period for the model covers one year, beginning with the wet season and continuing for 12 months through the dry season up to the beginning of the next wet season. As in the rest of Thailand, it is traditional to think of the farming year as beginning with the coming of rains which is a requisite for working the soil. The extent and form of the dry season cropping system as well as nonfarm activities is a function of rainy season crop performance. Therefore, it is reason- able to initialize the programming at the beginning of the rainy or wet season. In addition, the year was divided into 12 planning periods, beginning with the first period in May (the beginning of wet season) to the last period in April (the ending of dry season) in order to examine how farmers allocate their resources throughout the year. To make the model more sensitive to the problems of labor alloca- tion during the period of land preparation, transplanting and planting l29 rice, periods 2 and 3 for the wet season rice and periods l0 and ll for the dry season rice were divided into two subperiods. 4.2.2 Alternative Activity Set ' The alternative activities in the rainfed and irrigated farm models include the principal crop enterprises, nonfarm enterprises, labor hired in, labor hired out, household consumption expenditure, capital borrow- ing and repayment and necessary transfer activities. Each alternative activity is discussed as follows: 4.2.2.l Crop Enterprises Crop enterprises are composed of various crops typically found in the wet and dry season in the survey villages. However, to incorporate these crop enterprises in the LP model, a knowledge of the length of time needed for each crop from land preparation through threshing was required. The starting times in terms of each period are presented in Table 4.l and 4.2. Typical for the rainfed farmer, considering two kinds of crops growing glutinous and nonglutinous rice and its two alternative starting periods, there were only four crop production activities in- cluded. In the case of the irrigated farm, there were 29 alternative crop production activities based on four different crops (glutinous and nonglutinous rice, glutinous corn and tobacco) with different varieties (long—maturing rice in the wet season and short-maturing rice in the dry season), alternative planting dates and plowing technologies (i.e., use of either draft animal or machine tillers (see Table 4.2). The technical coefficients (Aij) for labor and capital used for each crop alternative presented in Appendix Tables 1 and 2 for the rain- fed farm and Appendix Tables 7 to 17 for the irrigated farm. Labor 130 requirements for each crop are expressed as coefficients for both male and female labor by period. The production unit of each crop is in terms of rai, thus the land requirement (Aij) is equal to l in each period that the cr0p is in the field including the time for land prepara- tion. 4.2.2.2 Nonfarm Enterprises Rainfed farm models include four common nonfarm enterprises, namely sericulture, silk weaving, mat making and sticky rice container making. Each alternative nonfarm enterprise, except sericulture, may be under- taken by the rainfed farm household members in each period of the year. As pointed out earlier, sericulture was commonly practiced in periods l, 3.1, 7 and ll. The activity units of sericulture, silk weaving, sticky rice containers and mat making are 1,200 grams of silk yarn, one piece of silk fabric, 28 containers and 60 mats, respectively. For the irrigated farm models, there are only three common nonfarm enterprises of cotton weaving, mat making and basket making. Both mat and basket making could be found in each period throughout the year, while cotton weaving is restricted to periods of the dry season. The activity unit of cotton weaving, mat and basket making are one piece of cotton fabric, 60 mats and two baskets. All of these activity units for both rainfed and irrigated farms correspond to the average quantity of those particular nonfarm products recently produced and reported by the sample farm house- holds at the time the supplemental survey took place. Labor and capital requirements (Aij) for each nonfarm enterprise were shown in Appendix Tables 3 to 6 for the rainfed farm and in Appendix Tables 18 and 19 for the irrigated farm. l3l 4.2.2.3 Labor Hiring in Activities Provision was made in the model for hiring labor during rice produc- tion activities to supplement family labor in critical or peak periods of labor demand. Based on evidence obtained from the survey, only adult male and female labor were hired with no child hired labor. Male and female hired labor were normally paid at the same wage rate of 525 per day or B3.l3 per hour. Since labor hiring activities add to thesupply of the family labor constraint, their technical coefficients (Aij) are negative. The price for hiring in labor activities are negative since they are costs which reduce the total net return. Exchange labor was excluded from the model due to the exchange given and received having to be equalized by the family labor with a given period. Thus, they cancel out. 4.2.2.4 Labor Hiring Out Activities In keeping with the off-farm employment information found in the survey villages as reported out earlier, the model allows the farm family members to hire out in two main off-farm work, namely agricultural field work and nonagriculture field work. The adult family members can be hired during the peak demand for workers in the periods of land prepara- tion, transplanting and planting, harvesting and threshing rice. This means that the rainfed farm family members can be employed in periods 2 and 3, and periods 6 to 8, while the irrigated farm family members can be hired in periods 2 and 4, and periods 7 and 8 for wet season rice production and from periods 10 and ll, and periods 12, l and 2 for the dry season rice production. In addition, both rainfed and irrigated farm workers were allowed to hire out during the period of harvesting and hauling activities, or periods 5 to 8 for the upland cr0p farmers. l32 0n the average, men and women hired labor paid equally at the wage of 324 per day or B 3 per hour. For the nonagricultural field work, the employment opportunities for farm family members were simplified beyond findings of the survey and restricted to periods 5 to 8 as these periods correspond to the activi- ties performed in the two major off-farm nonagricultural field work of local manufacturing and construction. Other activities were excluded because of their diversity. The number of hours for family labor to hire out in this off-farm employment were calculated on the basis of the average hours reported by the farmers. Male labor was paid B 35 a day (or 34.38 per hour) and female labor was paid B30 per day (or B 3.75 per hour). The technical coefficients (Aij) of the labor hiring out activities are positive as they draw the labor from the family labor sup- ply constraint. The wage earned from these activities are added to the total net return. 4.2.2.5 Capital Borrowing Activities Provision was made in the model for the rainfed and irrigated farm households to borrow short-term production capital (not more than one year) from the BAAC which was found to be the most important loan institu- tion for Khon Kaen farmers. This allows farm households to borrow when their initial capital or cash from the previous year is insufficient to meet production expenditures. The irrigated farm model includes 24 possible alternatives to borrow corresponding to the 24 alternatives in rice production. For the rainfed farm model there are only four alterna- tive short-term loans corresponding to the four alternative rice produc- tion activities. It was assumed that the farmers were allowed to get the 133 money at one time from the BAAC after obtaining bank approval of the request. 4.2.2.6 Capital Payback Activities Capital payback activities are incorporated in the model to force farm households to pay their debts within the production year. Follow- ing the BAAC rule, each production loan has to be paid back within nine months for wet season rice and within six months for dry season rice with 1 percent interest per month starting from the beginning period of borrowing. For example, cash borrowed in period I has to be paid back within period 9. The Cj of payback activities carries a negative sign and reflects the amount borrowed plus interest which had to be deducted from the total net revenue. 4.2.2.7 Capital Transfer Activities Capital transfer activities are included in the model to allow the capital which is left over after all crop and household consumption expenditures have been met at the end of one period to be transferred to the next period automatically. The transfer occurs for all periods and it is assumed cost free or Cj=0. 4.2.2.8 Household Consumption Activities It was assumed that the farm households should maintain their customary living standard as reflected by their family consumption pat- terns for food and nonfood outlays. Thus, these activities were in- corporated in the model to require the farm households to meet these requirements for food and nonfood in each period. The household .con- sumption requirements (Aij) in each period by farm size group of both 134 rainfed and irrigated farm households were computed and presented in Table 4.3. 4.2.3 Constraint Set The following resource constraints and other restrictions of the farm households are included in the analysis, and can be seen in Table 4.4 for rainfed farms and Table 4.5 for irrigated farms by farm size group. 4.2.3.1 Land The area of land represents the average amount of paddy land avail- able for cultivation in the wet season which may or may not be cultivated again in the dry season. In addition, the paddy land in each period of either wet or dry seasons is assumed to be homogenous in terms of fertil- ity. It should be mentioned here that the matter of field divisibility as well as land fragmentation as pointed out earlier is ignored in the programming analysis. The paddy land in each period is limited to 6.13, l7.26 and 36.97 rai for the small, medium and large rainfed farm, respectively. In the case of the irrigated farm situation, the availability of paddy land for small, medium and large in each period of the wet season (periods I to 8) is 5.ll, l4.90 and 30.97 rai, respectively. However, during the dry season (periods 9 to l2), the paddy land fOr medium and large farm house- holds are limited to ll.36 and l5.61 rai due to a shortage of irrigation water supply. Since the Nam Pong Irrigation Project has a policy to con- serve enough water for generating electricity during the dry season. 135 Table 4.3 Household Minimum Consumption Requirement by Period for Rainfed and Irrigated Farms (Baht Per Household) Rainfed Farm Irrigated Farm Small Medium Lar e Small Medium Lar e Period (3) (z) (31 (a) (a) (21 1 1,049 822 1,217 1,153 1,204 1,427 2 820 1,009 1,296 998 1,050 1,133 3 731 896 1,543 1,107 1,302 1,018 4 774 1,032 1,060 1,004 1,194 1,187 5 721 782 1,100 782 745 834 6 842 1,070 1,323 967 945 1,212 7 822 1,044 1,308 1,150 1,169 1,318 8 933 1,100 1,306 1,170 1,198 1,415 9 1,154 1,094 1,237 1,128 1,073 1,535 10 1,024 1,048 1,250 1,293 1,237 1,289 11 969 971 1,093 1,122 1,471 1,520 12 1,029 1,152 1,396 1,175 1,283 1,038 Total 10,868 12,020 15,129 13,049 13,870 14,926 136 Table 4.4 Land, Labor and Capital Constraints (RHS) for Rainfed Farm by Farm Size Groups Farm Size Class Item Small Medium Large Cultivated Land (rai) 6.13 17.26 36.97 Initial Cash (baht) 500 600 1,000 Borrowed Capital -- 5,796 15,000 (baht) Family Labor by Sex M F C M F C M F C and Age Period (Hour) (Hour) (Hour) 1 208 200 96 246 220 151 280 217 64 2.1 190 120 41 157 146 20 260 150 25 2.2 190 120 41 157 146 20 260 150 25 3.1 195 132 43 205 148 21 280 170 24 3.2 195 132 43 205 148 21 280 170 24 4 260 204 103 285 239 56 320 280 84 5 265 218 72 283 260 37 310 283 40 6 320 212 80 300 260 42 443 285 48 7 300 202 82 330 274 43 450 390 55 8 270 230 104 294 257 81 310 320 90 9 201 195 97 252 230 40 286 280 50 10 220 170 99 260 238 44 270 268 56 11 254 206 99 265 210 52 210 250 60 12 266 210 130 220 210 96 214 295 110 Note: M = Adult Male; F = Adult Female; C = Child. 137 Table 4.5 Land, Labor and Capital Constraints (RHS) for Irrigated Farm Size Groups Farm Size Class Item Small Medium Large Wet Season Cultivated 5.11 14.90 30.97 Land . Dry Season Cultivated 5.11 11.36 15.48 Land Initial Cash (baht) 994 1,753 2,834 Borrowed Capital 5,236 15,000 15,000 (baht) Family Labor by Sex M F C M F C M F and Age Period (Hour) (Hour) (Hour) 1 270 202 30 260 240 85 280 208 35 2.1 164 124 35 145 120 35 140 107 21 2.2 164 124 35 145 120 35 145 107 21 3.1 171 152 17 150 143 45 146 145 19 3.2 171 152 17 150 143 45 146 125 19 4,] 179 154 40 152 140 56 153 136 46 4.2 179 154 40 152 140 56 153 136 46 5 282 201 41 260 214 70 253 203 51 5 312 200 44 265 212 69 263 210 34 7 302 292 30 295 290 84 265 250 91 3 314 271 80 310 285 116 316 299 51 9 276 207 44 250 207 59 247 198 21 10,1 135 108 18 105 120 40 100 103 21 10.2 135 108 18 105 120 40 100 103 21 11,1 131 101 21 134 113 35 105 97 25 11.2 131 101 21 134 113 35 105 97 25 12.1 136 109 53 126 125 72 104 109 61 12.2 136 109 53 126 125 72 104 109 61 Note: M = Adult Male; F = Adult Female; C = Child. 138 4.2.3.2 Family Labor Supply The availability of family labor in each period is constrained by the average family size classified into male adult, female adult (14 to 65 years of age) and child labor (7 to 13 years of age) to represent the possibility of family labor. There is evidence that they are not fully substitutable for each other in particular activities as pointed out earlier. The total hours available fOr male and female labor in each period was computed by assuming that an adult is available to work an 8 hour day, year round. However, family labor can be employed on farm and nonfarm enterprises as well as participation in nonincome generating activities and minor farm activities (e.g., backyard pOultry, vegetable garden). Therefore, these additional activities must be reckoned in computing family labor supply. Nonincome generating activities include household domestic chores (e.g., cooking, child care, cleaning), religious and social activities and community commitment. The total hours that each family member devoted to these activities were estimated through the researcher's supplemental survey. Appendix Tables 20 to 28 and Appendix Tables 29 to 37 show the estimated amount of hours that male and female family members spent in nonincome generating activities and minor farm enterprises for each farm size group of rainfed and ir- rigated farms. The time available by male and female workers for farm and off-farm employment was estimated by deducting the average hours spent in both nonincome generating activities and minor farm activities from the total hours available for each labor class. These estimates for hours avail- able for work on-farm and off-farm activities by farm size group of rain- fed and irrigated farms are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 by farm size 139 group results from the varying size of the labor force. In the case of child family labor, it was assumed that each child over seven can help the family 8 hours a day during the nonschooling periods (March 25 to April 30, first half of August and December). The number of hours avail- able for a child to help the family were reduced to approximately 4 hours a day during the schooling time, but an 8 hour day was assumed for the weekends of this period. Based on this approach, the children's total hours available for farm work in each period for each farm size group in the rained and irrigated farm situations was computed as shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. 4.2.3.3 Hired Labor Hired adult males and females were assumed to be available in the village. According to evidence obtained from the supplemental survey, four males and four females hired as laborers can be hired up to 480 hours each per month at certain periods. The farm households interviewed in the supplemental survey, especially the ones who have relatively large farms, were found to hire labor to help in the peak period of land preparation, planting, harvesting and threshing of rice. The RHS figure of 480 hours of male labor and 480 hours of female labor available for hire was computed using the assumption that each adult laborer is avail- able to work 8 hours a day, 15 days a period, fOr a total of 120 hours per period. 4.2.3.4 Initial Available Capital The availability of initial capital is the amount of cash on hand reported by the sample households at the beginning period of wet season or period 1, to be used for productive purposes and for family 140 consumption. The average initial cash on hand of the rainfed and ir- rigated farm households having small, medium and large sized farms is presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. 4.2.3.5 Credit Loans are available from several sources, but one of the cheapest and most important for the sample households was the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC). The interest rate charged by BAAC is 1 percent per month. Farmers can obtain short-term production loans either from BAAC or through an agricultural cooperative acting as a representative for BAAC. This production loan is made available only for rice production. The maximum amount of each short-term loan the farmer can obtain was determined by BAAC as 50 percent of the total value of rice sold (i.e., expected price timesquantity of rice sold by the farmer). The quantity of rice potentially sold was equal to the expected production of rice produced deducting by the estimated amount of rice consumed by farm household members. In addition, BAAC imposed a loan limit of 815,000 maximum per farm family. However, according to the BAAC's rules on short-term loans, as mentioned above, the rainfed farm household with the small size farm (averaged 6.13 rai) is in- eligible for a short-term loan for rice production. This is because the small rainfed farm household with 6.13 rai of paddy land can produce only rice for the family consumption and there will not be enough surplus rice to secure a production loan. The maximum loan for rice production for medium and large rainfed farms is 5,796 and 15,000 baht, respective- ly. For the irrigated farm, the maximum potential available loan is 5,236, 15,000, 15,000 baht for small, medium and large sized farms, respectively. 141 4.2.3.6 Loan Payback In accordance with BAAC's rules on short-term loans for rice grow- ing, a loan must be paid within nine months. For instance, loans bor- rowed in period 1 must be paid back by period 9, with 1 percent of interest per month. The RHS value fOr the payback constraint rows are equal to zero. 4.2.3.7 Household Expenditures Each farm household is assumed to maintain a basic living standard in terms of household consumption for both food and nonfood items. The model requires that there be available in periods an amount of cash equal to the amount needed for consumption. Thus, the RHS value of these constraints is equal to 1 in each period. 4.2.3.8 Minimum Rice Consumption The rice consumption requirement for the farm households is the average amount reported on the monthly reports as rice consumed for all purposes throughout the year. The amount of glutinous rice consumed by the households was incorporated in the model by converting to the amount of planted area needed to yield this amount of glutinous rice using a 250 kg/rai yield for rainfed rice and 390 kg/rai yield of irrigated rice. The computed area requirement for small rainfed was 8.32 rai, but since the paddy land totaled only 6.13 rai, the amount available became the minimum. The rice land requirement to produce glutinous rice was 7.76 and 9.72 rai for medium and large rainfed farms, respectively. A minimum of 5.05, 5.08 and 5.0 rai of wet season glutinous rice was re- quired for small, medium and large irrigated farms, respectively. These requirements vary by households because of varying family size. 142 4.2.3.9 A Limit of Planted Area for Corn and Tobacco The maximum planted area for glutinous corn and tobacco is limited to 0.2 rai, corresponding to the average area of corn and tobacco grown by the sample households. This is due to the constraint in the local market demand for corn and tobacco. 4.2.3.10 A Limit of Off-Farm Work The maximum hours for farm family labor to hire out in nonagri- cultural field work was constrained at the level of average time re- ported by the sample households. Thus, the men and women workers of the farm households were allowed to hire out up to 60 and 36 hours, respectively, in each period from period 5 to 10. CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND ANALYSES 0F OPTIMUM RAINFED FARM SYSTEMS The programming results of the representative rainfed farm house- hold models under conditions described in the previous chapter are dis- cussed and presented in the following manner. First, the model results of small, medium and rainfed farms are analysed and compared to reveal the optimum allocation of labor and other household resources among farm, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm employment with the different sized farms. Consequently, it may permit an understanding of the relationship between the amount of farmland to the allocation of household family labor to farm, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm work. Secondly, the comparison of the composite farm model and actual results (obtained from the project phase II survey) are examined to assess the possibility for increased employment and income for the rainfed farm households with regard to their present situation. Finally, the shadow prices of scarce resources and excluded activities are examined to assess the potential gains in income obtainable through expansion or contraction of these limiting resources and nonbasis activities. 5.1 Optimal Solution of the Rainfed Farm Models The optimal plan generates the maximum family net income (after deducting the family consumption and initial cash) or net for saving small, medium and large farm size for 4,223, 7,886 and 12,654 baht per household respectively (Table 5.1). The large farm had net for saving per household nearly triple that for the small farm. In absolute terms, 143 144 Table 5.1 Farm, NonFarm and Family Income of Rainfed Farms Farm Size Class Item Small Medium Large Crop Value (baht) 3,985 12,644 28,118 (-) Operating Cost 1,248 3,504 7,588 (-) Hired Labor and Interest -- 337 3,692 Net Crop Value 2,737 8,803 16,838 (+) Other Farm Income 298 337 439 Total Farm Income 3,035 9,140 17,277 (+) Net Income from Nonfarm Product 3,769 3,893 4,212 (+) Income from Off-Farm Work 8,787 7,453 7,307 Total Household Net Income 15,519 20,486 28,796 (-) Value of Family Consumption 10,868 12,020 15,142 (-) Initial Cash 500 600 1,000 Net for Saving (baht) 4,223 7,866 12,654 Adult Labor Force 2.8 3.9 4.7 Household Net Income per Worker 5,568 5,253 6,127 Farm Income as Percent of Total 19.5 44.6 60.0 Nonfarm Income as Percent of Total 24.2 19.0 14.6 Wage Income as Percent of Total 56.3 36.4 25.4 Farm Size (rai) 6.13 17.26 36.97 Household Income/rai 2,543 1,187 779 Net Crop Income/rai 447 510 456 Land Area/Worker 2.18 4.43 7.87 145 as well as the portion of total household net income, the value of net farm income increases with the farm size increase while the value of in- come earned from off-farm employment varies inversely with the farm size. This is because of a higher proportion of family labor being involved in rice production activities as the farm size increases. Value of income obtained from nonfarm enterprises as the proportion of total household net income is likewise found to decrease with the farm size. The optimal plan for allocation of labor and other family resources to farm, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm employment for every farm size is presented in Table 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 and is discussed as follows: 5.1.1 Crop Enterprises The programming results for small farms suggest that the household should grow 5.23 rai of glutinous rice in period 1 (May) and .9 rai in the following period 2.1 (June) in the wet season to sustain the house- hold minimum subsistence levels. However, even with all land area (6.13 rai) being devoted to the glutinous rice production, the small farm household still has to buy 550 kilograms of additional rice to meet the household consumption requirement. Since the small farm household with the 6.13 rai can produce only 1,530 kilograms for glutinous rice (on the basis of yield average for 250 kilograms per rai). The gluti- nous rice is planted in two periods to help the small farmer to have enough family labor to meet both the peak demand for his own rice pro- duction activities and to be able to engage in cottage industry and off- farm work. 146 - - amp mm, mNP - oh_ pr - ON - mm - - aFmEaa Amccv umee - - om. Pep _NP «NP oew mm_ - - mm, - NN - ape: "ego: eaaa-eco - - on mm mm mm mm on - - - - - - 52.252 Ameev upa.e=oz - - om oo oo oo om om - - - - - - ape: "ego: ecaa-cco - u l u u u l u - l u u n . mpmsmm Aeaosv . l I l l - n l u u u u l . mp»: "Lone; cwnwgw: Agmcwmucouv om - - - - - - - mm - - - - - mcwxaz cmcwaucou move - N - - - - - - - - N - P P Amumwav m=.>mm3 x_.m Ammmm.mrjwv Ammlo.m.¢wV Am.|.Nm.m_.|.ww. xmm.~.m~.lllwv Asa oo_v ma=5_=uwemm 1mm “at om.o "New uv 553m mzocwpapw Am“ . we; mN.m ”Pacil UV au.m maocwpzpw mNNen Np PP _o_ m m N m m e N.m _.m N.N F.N _ cczpmm < z a a a z o m < a a z pmz vowgm; new spec: mvaw>vpu< same vaccwam ._asm .ceappaa me5P>Ppu< u_o;mm=o: scam PmEPpao N.m mFaMP 147 - - NON OOF NO_ ON OO ONN - O - OF - - OPOOOO NOOOO ONOON - - OON NON OON ON - NON - - - - - - ONO: “OOOO EOOO-ONO - - OO Om Om Om OO OO - - - - - - ONOOON NOOOO ONOONOOZ - - OO OO OO OO OO OO - - - - - - ONO: "ego: EOOO-OOO . l l u l l u u a u u l u . OFOEOO Aczozv . l l u u u I u u u l 1 ON 1 Opus "Noam; cwumLO: Amemcwmpcouv OO - - - - - - - OO - - - - - OOOOOz NOOOOOOOO OOOO - O - - - - - - - - O - N O NOOOOOV OOO>OO2 ONOO AIOOOIW AIIOOOIIV AllOOOnlw mlOONIw 35.5 OO: 233528 In“ OOO ON.O .NOOz.lwv. OOON OOOOOOONOOOZ 1AM OOO O0.0 .NmOz.ulilllme OOOO OOOOOOONOOOZ .mW POO ON.N .NOO..|mwv OOOO OOOOOOO_O OOONO N. __ ON O O N O O O N.O _.O N.N F.N . OOOOOO O 2 O O O z O O O O O z amz nowgmm tam cucoz OOOOO>OOO< acme OOOOOOO OOOOOz .OLOOOON OONOO>OOO< ONOOOOOOI SOON NOOOOOO m.m «Pack 148 - - NON OON OON - - NON - - - - - - O_OOOO NOOOV OPOOO - - ONN ONN OOO OO - OOO - - - - - - OOOO .OOOO OOOO-OOO - - OO OO OO NO - OO - - - - - - O_OOOO NOOOO OOOOOOOO - OO OO OO OO OO - OO - - - - - - OFOO .OOOO ELOO-OOO - - - - - - ON_ - NO - OO_ - - - O_OOOO NOOOOV - - - - - - OON - - OON - OON - - OOOO .OOOOO OO-OOOO Aemcwmpcoov OO - - - - - - - NO - - - - - OOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOO - O - - - - - _ - - O - N O NOOOOOO OOO>OO3 OOOO AONOIV TOKIV Alpmd V 5283 cc: 6.23—3.23 An” POO OO.OO HNOOzlwv OOOO OOOOOOO_OOOZ An“ -OOO ON.OO .OOOz......1wv OOOO OOOOOOOPOOOO An” TTOOO NN.O .OOO.lllullme OOOO OOOOOOOOO OOO.NPO NO _P O_ O O N O O O N.O _.O N.N ..N P OEOOOH O 2 O O O 2 O O O O O z OOz OOOOOO OOO OOOOO. OOOOOOOOOO Egan ummcwmm Omen; .cgmupma mmOuO>Ouo< upozmmzo: seem POsOuno ¢.m mpnmh 149 For the medium sized farm, the optimal plan meets the family con- sumption requirement with 7.76 rai of glutinous rice planted in period 2.1 (early June). The remaining 9.5 rai of land is used for nonglutinous rice production for sale. Of this amount 9.3 rai would be undertaken in period 1 (May) and the remaining .2 rai would be started at the same time as the glutinous rice (period 2.1 in June). For the large sized farm with 36.97 rai available for crop produc- tion, the programming results recommend that 9.72 rai of land should be put to glutinous rice in period 1 (May) for family consumption reqiure- ments, whereas 10.76 and 16.49 rai are devoted to nonglutinous rice pro- duction in period 1 and 2.1 respectively for commercial purpose. As for the small farm situation, the programming results for medium and large rainfed farms suggest that the farmers should split their rice production in two successive periods instead of in one period in order to minimize or avoid the problem of family labor supply shortage during the peak demand for rice production activities. These results conform to the usual way that the rainfed farmers spread their rice production over different periods. 5.1.2 Nonfarm Enterprises It was interesting to see that the three common nonfarm enterprises found in the sample households appear besides rice in the optimal plan for every farm size class. These common enterprises are sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making. The optimum solution for small and medium farms suggests that the households should practice sericulture during all four available times a year beginning in period 1 (May), 3 (Ju1Y), 7 (November) and 11 (March). The optimal solution 150 for large farms includes only three practices of sericulture a year be- ginning in periods 1, 3 and 11 because all of female labor in the large farm household are used up for rice production activities and nonagri- cultural field work in period 7 (November). Therefore, sericulture is not found in the period 7 as in the optimal plan for small and medium farms. However, according to these solutions, the household with small sized farm can produce a relatively large amount of silk yarn (5,088 grams) compared to the households with medium (2,895 grams) and large size farms (2,660 grams). This is because the larger farms utilize more female time in rice production leaving less for sericulture. Also the larger number of children in the family labor force on small farms than on medium and large farm households contribute to this result be- cause children contribute importantly along with females in silkworm rearing or sericulture. Silk weaving also enters the optimal plan for every farm size class. The plan recommends that the silk fabric should be woven in period 1 (June), 2.1 (the first half of June), 3.1 (the first half of July) and 11 (March) for small and medium farm households, and in period 1, 2.1, 3.1, 4 (August) and 11. All of these periods suggested by the optimal plan are the slack period for rice production activities. This recommended timing for silk weaving corresponds to the usual way that many women in the rainfed villages commonly weave silk fabric during the slack period of rice production activities. It needs to be pointed out that the greater output from silk weaving on medium and large farm household than on small farm household is because the medium and large farm households have relatively more females in the family labor force as pointed out earlier. 151 Sticky rice container making like sericulture and silk weaving ap— pears in the optimal solutions for every farm size class but only for two periods-~period 4 (August) and period 12 (April) which are the slack periods of rice production activities. Under the optimal plan for each farm size, the number of containers produced in the optimal plan increases with the farm size. Since the medium and large farm households have more female and male labor in the family labor force than the ones in the small farm household. This helps the medium and large farm household to take advantage from their relatively large labor force by producing more amounts of sticky rice containers. Mat making, which has been found to be a minor cottage industry compared to the other nonfarm enterprises in the rainfed villages, as discussed earlier, is excluded from the optimal solutions for every farm size class. This is because of its relatively low return to labor com- pared to the sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making. This conclusion is supported by Fleekenstein's study on returns to labor of selected enterprises found in the rainfed farm households [1980], in- dicating that mat making has a relatively low return (to labor). According to the results discussed above, it can be concluded that it is economically possible for the rainfed farm households to combine some cottage industries with their main rice production activities. 5.1.3 Hire-In Labor There is no hire-in labor for rice production activities in the op- timal plan for small farm size because the farm household has enough of its own family labor to supply the requirements for rice production ac- tivities. 152 In the optimal plan for medium sized farm, only male labor is hired in for land preparation in period 2.1 (June), and the rest of rice pro- duction activities could be done by family members. As expected, the optimal plan for the household with large sized farm inclddes hiring in labor for rice production activities in many periods. At the wage of 3.13 baht per hour (for both male and female work), the large farm household should hire male workers in periods 2.1 (first half of June), 3.1 (first half of July) for land preparation and in period 6 (October) for harvesting rice. In addition, female labor should be employed for transplanting and planting rice in period 2.2, 3.2 (the second half of June and July) and for harvesting rice for per- iod 6 (October). The above solutions show that the larger the operational farm size is the more workers are hired in. Thus it is necessary for the large farm household to hire in labor in the peak period of rice production activities in order to achieve the optimal farming system with a rice base. According to the nature of the local labor market for field work the large farm household can obtain hire-in labor from the household with smaller sized-farms who have excess labor force. This relationship in terms of hiring in and selling out labor between the large farm house- hold and the small farm household has been discussed earlier and it can be clearly seen in the next section where the small farm household hired out his/her family labor (both males and females) during the peak per- iods of rice production activities in the optimal plan for the small farm. 153 5.1.3 Off-Farm Work Hiring out both male and female labor during the peak periods for rice production activities and for upland crops (kenaf, cassava, sugar cane) production activities appears in the optimal plan for the small farm household. At the wage of 3 baht per hour for field work, the small farmers are willing to hire out family labor (both males and females) in every available period throughout the year which excludes periods 1 (May), 4 (August), 11 (March) and 12 (April). During these periods, there is no demand for field work as discussed earlier. The hiring out of family labor for the small farm household in periods 2 (June), 3 (July) and 6 (October) corresponds to the time that the large farm household hires in labor for rice production activities, and in periods 5 to 10 (September to February) which corresponds to the upland farmers' demand for field workers to harvest kenaf, sugar cane and cassava. In addition, the mo- del results for the small farm household show that both male and female family labor are hired out to manufacturing and construction at the as- sumed average wage of 4.38 baht per hour for male and 3.75 baht per hour for female. For the medium farm size, only female family labor is hired out for rice farming in periods 2, 3 and 6 as all of the male family labor was used up for its own rice production activities in these periods except for period 6 having some to sell for nonfield work. Both male and fe- male labor are hired out to upland farmers in periods 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which are the slack periods of rice production activities. Again, like the small farm household, the optimal plan indicates that the family 1a- bor of the medium farm household responds substantially to the off-farm 154 work opportunities in manufacturing and construction work available from period 5 to 10 (September to February). In the case of large farm households, as expected, there is no hiring out its family labor (both males and females) to rice farmers and construction and manufacturing during the peak periods for rice produc- tion activities (June, July and October) as all of male and female family labor were used up in those periods. But, the optimal plan shows that the large farm households like the small and medium farm households do respond to off-farm work for manufacturing and construction by hiring out the family labor during the slack periods of rice production activi- ties. It should be interesting that both classes of off-farm employment- agricultural field work and nonagricultural field work in construction and manufacturing offering a wage ranging from 3 to 4.48 baht (or more) per hour are very attractive not only for the small farm households but also for the medium and large farm households. This result is supported by the fact that many rainfed farm households in the study area have en- gaged in off-farm work as their supplementary source of family income during the slack periods of farm activities as pointed out earlier. Moreover, the above results points out that it is economically pos- sible for every farm size class of the rainfed farm households to engage in off-farm work on a part-time basis. 5.1.4 Capital Borrowing Activity The need to obtain short-term loans for rice production is indicated in the optimal plan for both medium and large farm households. The me- dium and large farmers should borrow 2,602 and 9,317 baht respectively. 155 This result suggests that both of medium and large farm households have insufficient operating capital (cash) to meet their rice production ex- penses for the optimal plans, and they may have to borrow. Relatively, the households with large sized farm need more operating capital compared to the one with smaller farm size. It should be mentioned here again that the small farm household with an average of 6.13 rai of farmland has no borrowing capacity because not enough rice can be produced with this amount of farmland to guarantee the BAAC's short-term loan as dis- cussed earlier. 5.1.5 Nonbasis Enterprises: Shadow Prices and Stability Coefficients Nonbasis activities are those that do not enter the optimal solution of the model. Under the optimal plan for small, medium and large farm, mat making is the only nonfarm enterprise that never enters the solution, while silk weaving and sticky rice container making in many periods are excluded from the plan. Table 5.5 lists the excluded enterprises and their shadow prices. Shadow prices indicate the income penalties of forcing one unit of nonbasis activities into the optimal solution at the indicated interval. Therefore, the shadow prices reveal the competitive period by period of activities in the optimal solution. In principle, the lower the shadow price of a nonbasis activity for a given period, the higher is the competitive position. For example, in case of small farm h0usehold, the shadow price of sticky rice container making in per- iod 3.2 is 0.5 per unit of 28 containers produced (or 80.02 per one con- tainer) this value is a net marginal cost (i.e. the excess of marginal cost over marginal revenue) indicating that the family income would be reduced by 80.02 if one unit (one container) was made. Thus, for small 156 N.N—m on m.mon o.vom a» m.o_m N.NNN 0» N.Npm Amuae om Eon» ocwmcce N— l N EOLN ocOocac N— u — soc» 9:.acag Np . N "uOca coOuuavogOv OOOOO: OO: m.m .—.cmp ._.om— NP .0. .m o.m .N.omp .—.om_ N— .o. .m ¢.n ._.cm— .—.co— —— .c. .O N.om— .v.NmN .o.oNN m .N .o _.cap .o.Nm— .m.—ON m .N .O —.co— .N.ch ...co— m .N .o Angoc_oucou mN v.—oN .a.NN .e.moN m .N.n .—.m o.mvp .m.o .m.ooN m .N.m .—.n —.oo— .m.o .o.omp m .N.m .—.m no_ca OOOuuzcogav m.m— .0.0NN .O.N N.N .—.N .— m.c .o.aoN .N.n N.N .—.N .— m.o .o.oa— .o.nc N.N .—.N .N ocvxuz Locwoucou nova u- .. N.o N— N.o Np O.o op .o .m v.o o— .m .m «.9 o— .a .m AauoOn _ o.mn .0.0 .m.o N .m .m m.o N .o .m N.op .e.o .c.o N .o .m Nu_:= coOOOOOOLOv N.NN N.N .N.N N.o .m.o .m.o o .N.m .N.N N.o .c.c .e.o O .N.m .N.N ch>Om3 xNOm “mango Np N.mN e u- u- n- .. News: :oOOOOucLOV mesa—:uOgom N_OO _ -- -- -- -- O.N .O._ _.N ._ .O.OO OOOOOOOOOO. ou_¢ mace—uapucoz NOOO _ m.o N.N n.o — "ave: =o_uo:coeav ouON ancOuzpu NOOOONOO NO_OONOO NOOOONOO ouOLO :ouagm voOcmO wows; :ocogm uoOLOO oOOLO :ouozm no_cma OmOOeaLoucm Scam «new; scum EaOcmz Esau NNOEm OOONu oNOm Egan an u—ogmmao: Egan voNOOON as» No OOONO zocmgm NOOON use OmOOLOLuucm OOOoacoz m.m apnoh 157 farms, making sticky rice containers in this period is in the strongest competitive position having a near zero shadow price. The higher the shadow price the lower its competitive position in the Optimal plan. For instance, again in case of small farm households, mat making in the period (12) having the largest shadow price (3312 per 60 mats or 5.2 baht per mat), is in the weakest competitive position. This information helps explain why in every period the making of mats does not enter in the optimal solution for every farm size class. However, the shadow prices of excluded enterprises are difficult to compare across the enter- prises because these excluded enterprises have no common denominator in the production unit. For instance, each production unit of mat making is based on 60 mats whereas each production unit of sticky rice container making is based on production of 25 containers. These shadow prices would indicate very clearly the ordering of excluded enterprises in terms of preference if they carried the same units. Another approach to evaluating the LP solution is to consider its stability. This approach is interested in the question of how much the gross margins could be altered for enterprises in the optimum solution without changing that solution or the question of how much the gross margins would need to be altered for excluded enterprises in order to bring them in solution. Table 5.6 lists the highest value of the gross margin (per unit of production) of the excluded nonfarm enterprises for which no change in, the optimal plan. They are referred to as upper bound stability coef- ficients. The figures indicate that if the gross margin or net return (per specified unit of production) of a particular excluded nonfarm 158 ONON seam ONNON u N NONON ELOO sspumz u z OONON Egan NNOsN u N ”mpoz NNN NNN NON l- n- .. NNO NNO NNO NN ONN NNO ONN N—N NNN NNN .. l- 1. NO ONN ONN ONN ONO ONO ONO NNO NNO NON NN ONN ONN ONN ONO ONO ONO NNN NNO NNO O ONN ONN ONN ONO ONO ONO NNN ONN NNN N ONN ONN ONN NNO NNO NNO ONN NNO NON N ONN ONN ONN ONO ONN ONO NON NNO NNO O ONN ONN ONN NNO NNO ONO NNO NNO NNO N NNO NON NNN .. l- u- .. NNO NNO O ONN ONN ONN ONN NON NON NON NON NNO N.N NNO NNO NNO ONO NNO NNO .. u- u- N.N ONN ONN NNN ONN NON NON NON NNO NNO N.N NNO NNO ONN NNO ONO ONO .. l- .. N.N NNO NNO NNO NNN NON NNN .. u- u- N N z N N z N N z N ANOOE NNNNV ANNONOOONOO NNNNV AwumONNNV Ncpxmz NO: NcOsz NONOOOOON NOON OxoOuN NOO>sz NOON NOONOO OOOOLOLOONOOOZ NONONuxN No OONNOz ONOLN mo OONO> NOOONO: NON ON—ogmmso: ELON NONNOON .NONONNNOONN Egmwcoz OOOONOXO NO OOOOOOOOOOOO OOONOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO o.m wpnmh 159 enterprise increases over its highest value, this particular excluded nonfarm enterprise will become viable alternative for the households and may be included in a new optimal solution. For instance, in the case of small rainfed farm households, the excluded mat making activities in period 1 (May) may become a profitable alternative for the rainfed farm household to perform in period 1 (May) if the net return of mat is higher than 602 baht per unit of 60 mats produced or 10.03 baht per mat produced. Comparing these values with the present gross margin of mat making used in the model (247 baht per 60 mats or 4.1 baht per mat, Appendix Table 6), the gross margin of mat making needs to be increased by at least twice from its current gross margin to make mat making al— ternative become the viable enterprise for the rainfed farm households with every farm size. In the case of the excluded sticky rice container making, it may need to raise the gross margin from 0.5 to 97 percent of its current gross margin (214 baht per 28 containers or 7.6 baht per container, Appendix Table 5) to bring excluded sticky rice container making in cer- tain periods into the optimal solution for every farm size class in the rainfed area. It was interesting to observe that in the case of silk weaving it may need to increase gross margin slightly, in the range of 0.07 to 8 percent from its current gross margin of 132.9 baht per piece, (Appendix Table 4) to make silk weaving in certain periods to be profit- able alternative for small and medium rainfed farm households, while it needs to be increased from 0.07 to 24 percent of its current gross mar- gin to make silk weaving become viable alternative for the large rainfed farm households in certain periods (See Table 5.6). 160 On the basis of these results for rainfed farms it would appear that the specified plans is very stable as regards to the basis enterprises, especially sticky rice container and mat making. 5.2 Optimal Labor Utilizatidn Pattern The optimal labor utilization pattern to farm (rice production ac— tivities), nonfarm enterprise and off-farm employment for small, medium and large sized farm is summarized and presented in Table 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9 respectively. The results show the optimal patterns of labor utili- zation by age and sex across the farm size class are seasonal and how they differ among the farm size classes. For the small farm household optimal plan, about 12.7, 6.9 and 48.3 percent of the total available male labor are allocated to rice produc- tion activities, nonfarm enterprises (sticky rice container making) and off-farm employment respectively. This suggests that the maximum utili- zation of male family labor to income generating activities is about 68 percent of the total available male labor under the optimal plan based on the situation discussed in the previous chapter. It can be seen in Table 5.6 that some slack labor for males appears in periods 1, 2.2, 3.2, 11 and 12. Female family labor is fully utilized under the optimal plan in which 8.5, 48.3 and 43.2 percent of total available female labor are allocated to rice production activities, nonfarm enterprise (sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making) and off-farm employment respectively. Sericulture is the most labor utilizing nonfarm enter- prise included in the optimal solution as it accounts for a half of all female labor allocated to nonfarm enterprises, whereas silk weaving and sticky rice container making utilize only 27 and 21 percent. Children 161 .ONO>ONOONOOL N New N .z NON ONNONOO>O Opmpou co NONONEON OmNOucmugmN mm: LONON ONOEON N OONONONN u N mmNOEmN u N "ONO: u z ”muoz nn nn N.NO N.NO N.NN N.NO N.N N.N N.NN N.NNN N.NNN N.NNF NucmugmN nn nu NNNN NNNN NNN NNNN NNN N—N NNO NNNN NNNN ONNN Lao: punch nu nn nn nn O.Np N.NNN O.NO nu nn NON NNN NNN NNozuN nn nn N.NNN N.NN nn uu nu nn N.N NN NNN NNN NNNnN nu nn N.NNN N.NN nu nn nn nn N.N NN N—N NNN NNNnm nn nn nn nu O.NN N.NNN N.NO un N.N NNO ONN NNN Ns< NWflmmN OOOON OONOO NNNONOO>< No NcouewN NO ONN NNNON OMOEON LONON ANOEON OLON OONOOOO NNOEO NO OOOOONONNOO NOOOO NO ONOOOOO NOENOOO N.N m—nmh 162 .aNm>NNumNNmN N NNO N .z NON ONNONNO>O ONONON co umpzaeou Ommmacmugma mm: NONON ONOEON N :mL—NPEU u o "2.95.... n N. mmpwz u z "muoz -- N.N N.NO O.OO N.NO O.NO , O.O N.ON N.OO O.OON O.OON O.OO. NOOOONON -- NN NNNN OON. OON NNNN ONO OOO ONN. ONO OOON OOOO NOOO NOOON -- -- n- -- N.OO 0.00N O.NO -- -- OO ONN ONN NOO-NN -- -- -- -- O.OON O.OON -- -- -- NO ONN OON NOO-NN -- -- O.OON O.OON .. -- -- -- -- OO OON OON OON-ON -- -- O.OON O.OON -- -- -- -- -- OO OON NON OOO-O -- -- N.ON O.OO -- O.ON -- O.NN N.ON NO NON OON OOO-O -- -- O.NN O.OO O.OON O.NN -- N.OO O.OO OO ONN OOO >Oz-N -- -- O.OO N.ON -- n- -- O.OO O.OO NO OON OOO OOO-O -- -- O.OON N.ON .. -- -- -- O.NN NO OON OON OOOnO .. -- -- -- O.NN O.OON O.OO -- N.OO OO OON OON OOO-O -- -- N.N -- O.OON O.ON -- O.NO O.NN NN OON OON NOO-N.O -- -- -- -- O.OON O.OON -- -- O.OON NN OON OON NOO-N.O .. -- O.O -- -- O.O -- N.NO O.OO ON OON NON OOO-N.N -- NN -- -- -- O.OON -- -- O.OON ON OON NON OOO-N.N -- -- -- -- O.OON O.OON -- -- O.NN NO ONN OON OOz-_ N z N. O O N z N O O N O OOOOO NNOOON ONONONNO ONONOOO NONO NNOOON ONOONNO>O OWNWON NNNON NOON: ONOONNOOO NO OOOONON OO OOO NOOOO ONNOON NONON ONNEON N.N mpnmk ONON OONONOO OONOOz NO OONOONNNNOO NOOOO NO ONONOON NOONOOO 163 .ONm>NNumNOmN N NNO N .z NON mesa; ONNONNO>O NOON» No OSLO» ON OONONNOONON N swig—.28 u u ”2.95..— N N mmpmz z ”muoz N.NN O.ON N.OO O.ON O.OO O.OO N.O N.ON N.OO O.OON 0.00N O.OON NOOOONOO OOO NOO NOON NOON OON OOON OOO NOO NNON OON NOOO ONNO NOO: NOOON -- -- -- O.OON 0.00, 0.00N O.OON .. -- ONN OON ONN NOO-NN -- -- -- .. O.OON O.OON -- -- -- OO OON ONN NOz-N_ -- -- O OO. O.OON .. n- -- -- -- OO ONN ONN OON-O_ -- -- O OO. O.OON -- -- -- n- .. OO OON OON OOO-O -- -- O OO O.OO -- -- -- N. N O.ON OO ONO ONO OOO-O -- -- N O O.ON -- n- -- O.NO 0.0N OO OOO OOO >Oz-N ONN OON .. -- -- -- -- O.OON O.OON OO OON OOO OOO-O -- n- O OON N.NO -- -- -- .. O.NO OO OON ONO OOOnO -- n- n- -- 0.00 0.00. O.NO -- O.NO, OO OON ONO OOO-O NO -- -- -- O.OON 0.0N -- N.OO O.ON ON ONN OON NOO-N.O -- OON .. -- 0.00. O.OON -- -- 0.00N ON ONN OON NOO-_.O OON -- -- -- .. O.O -- O.OO O.OO ON OON OON OOO-N.N -- OON .. -- -- O.OON -- -- 0.00N ON OON OON OOO-N.N -- -- -- -- O.OON 0.00N -- -- N.NN OO N.N OON OOO-N N z N O O N z N O O N z OOOOO 4&65 EONnNNN EONOOZ NOON €39: “5%me Noam; NNNN: NON OOO NOOOO NONOON NO OOOONOO NONON ONNEON o.m mpnmh ELON NONNNON ONNON No :oNNONNNNNN NNNON No ONONNON NOENNNN 164 contribute about 34 percent of their available labor to sericulture and sticky rice container making in the optimal plan. However, the labor provided by children becomes limited for nonfarm enterprise in period 1 (May), 3.1 (first half of July) and 11 (March) as all of their avail- able labor in these particular periods were used up (Table 5.7). In the case of the meidum farm household, the optimal labor contri- bution of males, females and children in rice production activities, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work is shown in Table 5.8. Neither males and children fully utilize their labor in some periods. For in- stance, slack male labor appears in period 1, 2.2, 3.2, 4 and 12 as there is no opportunity for males to hire out their labor to off-farm work as pointed out earlier. In addition, a shortage of female and child labor for making sticky containers which is the only cottage industry avail- able for males, causes a slack for male labor in those periods. Males utilize about 35, 10 and 34 percent of their available labor to rice pro- duction activities, sticky rice container making and off-farm work re- spectively. Even children contribute about 42 percent of their year round available labor to sericulture and to the making of stickyrice containers. All of their labor is fully utilized in many periods such as period 1 (May), 3 (July), 7 (November) and 11 (March). This points out the importance of the contribution of children to the family indus- tries. Female labor annual available labor is fully utilized distributed with about 20, 43 and 37 percent to rice production activities, nonfarm enterprises (sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making) and off-farm employment respectively. 0f the few nonfarm enterprises entering the optimal plan, silk weaving is the major enterprise as it accounts for 42 percent of female labor used in these nonfarm 165 enterprises, while sericulture and sticky rice container making equally share 29 percent of the female labor. The optimal plan for large farms indicates some male and child la- bor are slack in certain periods when there are no income generating ac- tivities available as well as when there is not enough female labor to accomplish joint efforts since all female labor is used up in these periods. Males contribute about 46, 10 and 26 percent of their available labor to rice production activities, sticky rice container making and off-farm employment respectively leaving about 18 percent of their annual available labor unused. Children also show their important role in the optimal labor utili- zation plan by providing about one-third of their annual available labor to sericulture and sticky rice container making. In addition, child labor appears to be very scarce in many periods, e.g. period 1, 3 and 11 as all of child labor is used up in those periods as it can be seen through Table 5.9. All of the female labor was fully utilized every period in this optimal plan. The largest proportion of female labor (40 percent) was contributed to sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container. Females also share about 34 and 26 percent of their labor to off-farm work and and rice production activities respectively. Some conclusions can be summarized from the above optimal pattern of labor utilization for every farm size class. First, the contributory role of men, women and children to rice production activities, family industries and off-farm work varies widely due to the nature of the pro- ductive activities of the respective enterprises. Men play the dominant role in rice production activities as a whole and in off-farm work while 166 the role of women and children is in family industries for the small farm household. For medium and large farm size, men are primarily oc- cupied in rice production activities while women are engaged not only in farm production and in nonfarm enterprises but in off-farm work as well. Secondly, the allocation of male and female labor to rice production pro- portional to their available labor increases when the size of farm in- creases. Conversely, the allocation of male and female proportional to their available labor to off-farm employment increases with the farm size. The contribution of women as the proportion of their total avail- able labor to family industries (sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making) decreases with the farm size, but for men and children the results are not conclusive. Finally, the amount of hired labor (in terms of hours) appearing in the optimal plan for large and medium farms but with none in the small farm solution suggests that the demand for hire-in labor is positively related to the operational farm size as would be expected. For instance, the large farmers hired in men labor and women labor for 15 and 17 percent of their available male and female labor respectively for rice production and activities (Table 5.9). Medium farm household also hired in male labor for 71 hours or 2.1 percent of the available male labor for rice production activities, while there is neither men nor women hired labor for the small farmers (Table 5.7 and 5.8). 5.3 Shadow Price Of Land and Labor One of the important values of linear programming is that it re- veals the shadow price of scarce resources and constraints. Consequent- ly, it indicates the marginal contribution to inCome of the last unit 167 of resources used in the optimum solution. Only resources which are fully exhausted have positive shadow prices. Hence, the shadow prices of resources indicate which resources are restricting and the potential gains in income obtainable through acquiring one more unit of the limit- ing resource. The higher the shadow price, the more limiting the re- sources. Shadow prices of resources also indicate the pressures to ex- pand or contract the use of a specific resource. The shadow prices for selected resources of small, medium and large farm size are presented in Table 5. 10. The LP results show that paddy land is fully utilized and in short Supply for every farm size class as revealed by shadow prices of 320, 261 and 278 baht per rai for small, medium and large farms respectively. This suggests that the provision of land is a crucial factor for increas- ing the scale of operation and the level of income. According to the study on land to rent in Khon Kaen [Chalamwong and Onchan, 1981], the land rent averages 330 baht per rai. Comparing sha- dow price with land rent, it would appear that the expansion of land use (by renting) for rice production for small, medium and large farmers would not be profitable under the assumed yield and prices. However, this must be a tentative conclusion because this rental rate for crop- land (330 baht per rai) may not be appropriate value to be compared with the above shadow prices of land for the rainfed farms. The reported land rent was computed as an average of that reported by a sample of households including rainfed rice farms, rainfed upland crop farms and irrigated farms. Consequently, the average rent reported for all farms is not comparable to the particular types of farms used in this study. Shadow Prices of Labor of Rainfed Table 5.10 168 Farm by Farm Size Class and Period 'Family Labor(baht/hour) Shaafiw Prices dd Nd Male Female Child Period S M L. .S . M L S M L l -- -- -- 3.16 3.16 3.19 0.02 0.24 0.19 2.1 3.01 3.22 3.39 3.00 3.16 3.16 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -- 3.01 3.18 3.44 -- -- -- 3.1 3.00 3.22 3.31 2.99 3.16 3.16 0.51 0.28 0.17 3.2 -- -- -- 3.00 3.18 3.44 0.51 0.28 0.17 4 -- -- 0.01 2.99 3.11 3.16 -- -- -- 5 3.00 3.08 3.18 3.00 3.08 3.18 -- -- -- 6 3.00 4.61 3.31 3.00 3.08 3.31 -- -- -- 7 3.00 3.08 3.18 3.21 3.08 3.97 -- 0.10 -- 8 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 -- -- -- 9 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 -- -- -- 10 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.99 2.99 2.99 0.26 0.26 0.26 -- -- 0.01 2.99 2.99 2.99 -- -- -- Note: S = Small Farm; M = Medium Farm; L = Large Farm 169 According to the shadow prices of family labor presented in Table 5.10 female family labor appears to be limiting the most often for the various labor resources in the optimal solution as they are exhausted in every period throughout the year. For small farms, the shadow price of female labor ranges from 2.99 to 3.21 baht per hour. The period of (November) is the most critical period for female labor as revealed by the highest shadow price of female labor (3.21 baht per hour). There is a heavy demand for female labor during the period for harvesting glutinous rice leaving only a small surplus of female labor for prac- ticing sericulture and hiring out to nonagricultural work in construction or manufacturing. For medium and large farms, the shadow price of fe- male labor is relatively high in period 2.2 and 3.2 which are the per- iods with heavy demand for women labor to transplant and plant rice. Male labor for every farm size is likewise fully utilized in many periods (Table 5.10). As would be expected, male labor is more limiting on the medium and large sized farms than on the small farm size as re- vealed by their large shadow prices in 2.1, 3.1, 5, 6 and 7. During these periods, male labor for both medium and large becomes most limit- ing in periods 2.1, 3.1 and 6. Periods 2.1 and 3.1 are the periods for land preparation and period 6 is the period for harvesting nonglutinous rice. These periods have a heavy demand for male labor and, in the case of large farms, additional workers must be hired for their rice produc- tion activities. Table 5.10 shows the interesting result that all of the available labor from children is exhausted in many periods such as periods 1, 3.1, 170 3.2 and 11 for every farm size.. This demonstrates the economic value of child labor in terms of their positive shadow prices and their signifi- cant role for family industries like sericulture and the production of sticky rice containers. 5.4 Comparison of Actual and Model Resu1ts The comparison of the actual and model results will be discussed in this section. The actual results for small, medium and large farm were derived from the project Phase II surveys on the basis of the average of all sample households in each farm size class. Ideally, the comparison of the actual and programming results would be used to test or validate the model results and to assess the possibil- ity for the rainfed farm households to improve the families' income through the optimal solutions suggested by the programming model. How- ever, it is difficult to compare the programming results with the actual results that were derived from the project Phase 11 survey due to the following problems: (1) There is inadequate information on the actual rice production systems (varieties, technology, planting and harvesting dates) followed by the farmers available from the project Phase II survey. This makes it impossible to compare, in precise terms the optimal cropping systems recommended by the model with the one performed by the actual farmers. (2) The estimation of family labor use for as well income obtain- ed from the vegetable garden, poultry and livestock rearing was derived from the one short survey conducted by the researchers for use on the model. These labor use and income figures were then added to the pro- gramming results later to get a complete picture of farm enterprise 171 component. The accounting rules in the supplemental survey may be dif- ferent from those employed in the Phase II survey. Thus, the problem of under or over estimation of vegetable, live- stock and poultry component may be expected from either of the surveys may cause a difference in the comparison of farm income and labor use in farming activities between the model and actual results as can be ob- served from the Table 5.11. (3) It is difficult to diagnose differences found in the compari- son between the actual and model results without the information of costs and returns of the enterprises which is not available from the projected Phase II survey. (4) With regard to the off-farm employment component, the model simplifies the off-farm employment opportunities in commerce and ser- vices due to a lack of detail information about these types of off-farm work. But the reported actual results in Table 5.11 have already in- cluded these types of off-farm work. With the recognization of the above comparison problems, the rough comparison between the actual and model results will be explained using the selected variables of income (by source) and labor (i.e. family labor utilization pattern to farm, nonfarm and off-farm activities by age and sex) which is available from the Phase II survey. Table 5.11 indicates that the composition of family net income by source obtained from the programming model and actuals have similar patterns. Both results suggest that the net income from farm enterprise as a prOpor- tion of household income increases as the farm size increases, while net income from nonfarm enterprises and off-farm employment are in- versely related to the size of farm. Consequently the programming 172 Table 5.11 Comparison of Actual and Model Results of the Rainfed Farms Item u ‘hA _A Small Farm Medium Farm Large Farm ACtual- Modéli Actuali Model_ Actual Model Income (baht) Farm 4,233 3,035 7,686 9,140 8,778 17,277 (26.6) (19.5) (41.7) (44.6) (44.0) (60.0) Nonfarm 3,350 3,769 3,793 3,893 3,704 4,212 (21.0) (24.2) (20.6) (19.0) (18.6) (14.6) Off-farm 8,351 8,787 6,939 7,453 7,482 7.307 (52.4 (56.3) (37.7) (36.4 (37.5) (25.4) Total 15,934 15,591 18,41 20,48 19,964 28,796 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Labor Utilization (Hour) Farm Male 1,290 1,259 1,854 2,042 2,411 2.516 (48.1) (40.0) (62.6) (57.9) (70.4) (62.7) Female 853 600 1,053 1,118 1,459 1,458 (38.7) (20.5) (45.4) (31.9) (51.2) (36.4) Child 583 477 323 250 494 548 (59.9) (55.0) (59.8) (49.0) (74.1) (67.8) Nonfarm Male 479 230 332 328 583 399 ~ (17.9) (7.4) (11.2) (9.3) (17.0) (10.0) Female 813 1,236 836 1,271 981 1.393 (36.9) (42.0) (36.0) (36.3) (34.5) (34.8) Child 319 380 217 260 173 260 (40.1) (44.3) (40.2) (51.0) (25.9) (32.2) Off-Farm Male 911 1,611 779 1,158 431 1,097 (34.0) (52.0) (26.2) (32.8) (12.6) (27.3) Female 537 1,099 431 1,112 407 1,157 (24.4) (37.5) (18.6) (31.8) (14.3) (28.8) All Activities Male 2,680 3,100 2,965 3,528 3,425 4,012 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Female 2,203 2,936 2,320 3,501 2,847 4,008 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Child .974. - 857 , 540 -510 667 808 '2 (100.0) (100.01.110040) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Note: Figures in parentheses are column percent figures. 173 solution are consistent with the actual results with regard to the rela- tionship between the size of farm and net income by source. Again, the allocation of family labor to farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work as a proportion of total available labor in the model has a similar pattern to that found in the actual farm. That is, the share of female and male labor to farm enterprises proportional to their available labor varies directly with the size of the farm while the share of male and female labor to both nonfarm enterprises and off-farm employ- ment proportional to their available labor decreased when the size of farm increases. But, the contribution of children to farm and nonfarm enterprises as suggested in the model is inconclusive and slightly dif- ferent to the actual farms. CHAPTER 6 RESULTS OF THE IRRIGATED FARM MODELS The programming results for small, medium and large irrigated farms will now be presented in the same manner as the previous chapter. The optimal farm household organization with maximum household income will be discussed first by farm size, followed by a presentation of the optimal pattern of family labor utilization to farm, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm employment. The marginal value product or shadow prices of land, labor and capital resource will be interpreted. Finally, the model results will be compared to the actual results by farm size class. 6.1 Optimal Solution of the Irrigated Farms The maximum annual family net income (after deducting the value of family consumption on food and nonfood items and household initial cash in hand) or net for saving (or for investment) in the optimal plan is 8,869, 14,479 and 21,491 baht per household for small, medium and large farms, respectively (Table 6.1). Looking at the composition of income generated in the optimal plans, the share of farm income in absolute term as well as in proportion to total household income increases when the size of farm increases. Conversely, the income from nonfarm enter- prises as well as from off-farm employment decreases with the farm size. The general conclusion is that as the farm becomes smaller, the farm household tends to rely more heavily on income from family industires and off-farm work. 174 l75 Table 6.1 Farm, Nonfarm, Off-Farm and Family Income of Irrigated Farms by Farm Size Farm Size Class Item Small Medium Large Crop Value (Baht) 10,605 29,283 52,092 . (-) Operating Cost 3,085 7,788 13,191 (—) Hired Labor -- 1,587 7,272 Net Crop Value 7,520 19,908 31,630 (+) Other Farm Income 1,855 1,667 2,307 ' Total Farm Income 9,375 21,575 33,937 (+) Net Income from Nonfarm Product 1,591 1,231 542 (+) Income From Off-Farm Work 11,949 7,311 4,791 Total Household Income 22,915 30,117 39,270 (-) Value of Family Consumption 13,052 13,884 14,945 (-) Initial Cash 994 1,754 2,834 Net for Saving 8,869 14,479 21,491 Adult Labor Force 4.9 4.9 4.4 Household Income/Worker 4,677 6,146 8,925 Farm Income as Percent of Total 40.9 71.6 86.4 Nonfarm Income as Percent of Total 6.9 4.1 1.4 Off-Farm Income as Percent of Total 52.2 24.3 12.2 Farm Size (Rai) 5.39 15.45 32.36 Household Income/Rai 4,252 1,949 1,214 Net Crop Income/Rai 1,395 1,289 977 Land Area Per Worker 1.1 3.15 7.35 176 The optimal solutions for irrigated farms by farm size are presented in Tables 6.2 to 6.4. The enterprises and activities included in the optimal plans will now be discussed. 6.1.1 Cr0p Enterprise The programming solutions suggest a very simple cropping pattern for the small farm compared to the ones appearing in the optimal solu- tions for medium and large farms. Most of the farmland for a small farm household is devoted to glutinous rice production in the wet season to meet minimum subsistence levels, leaving only a small area of land (0.06 rai) for growing tobacco for sale. But the small farm households use all available land (5.11 rai) for nonglutinous production in the dry season. To be precise, the small farm household should grow 5.05 rai of glutinous rice in period 2.1 (June) for family consumption and use 0.06 rai for tobacco production in period 5 and 5.11 rai for the dry season nonglutinous rice for sale in period 10.1. However, the optimal cropping pattern differs slightly from the present mix of crops for small farms growing only rice, as tobacco was included in the optimal plan because it has relatively high returns to land. There is a slightly different cropping pattern appearing in the optimal plan for medium and large farms. The optimal solutions suggest both medium and large farmers should grow wet season glutinous rice for a minimum area of land to meet the family consumption requirement. The rest of the land for medium farms should grow tobacco, corn and non- glutinous rice for sale, while the rest of the farmland for large farms should grow only tobacco and nonglutinous rice. Both wet and dry season nonglutinous rice are suggested to be planted in the different 177 .xNOz NNONN NONONNOONNNO ON NONENONOEO ELONnNNN O .NONNONOONOOOE OOO OOONOONNOOOO ON NOOEOONOEO ELONnNNNO .OONN OOOONNONNOO: u «N: NOON; OOOOONONN u ON OOONO>NNNOO n ONONNOO u N NNOOOOO NNO u N OOOOOOO um: n 3 "Opoz - - ON - OO OO OON OON NON OON OON OON .. OO - ONN - - ONOOON - NO - ON OON NO NNN ONN OON NON OON - OON .. ON OON OON - ONO: N.ONON NNOO ONONN n n n n NN NN ON ON ON ON ON n n n n n n n ONOsmN - - - - OO OO OO OO OO OO OO - - - - - - - ONO: ON.ONON NOON ONONNOOZ n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n ONOEON NOOON nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ONOzEnONN: NNOON - - - - - - - - - - - - ON .. ON - NN ON OONNOO OOO NOONOOOV O - O - - - - - - - - O - .O - - - O OONNOO NONOOO NOOONNN O N n N n n n n n n n n n n n n n n NOO>OO3 :ONNON .22 NN.OHNO.ONNOOzllw ll lNllO ONO 1.5.. OO .O" NOONlIv 1NONOO.OHNO.3NNOO1 w OOOOO N.NNN.NN N.NN N.NN N.ONN.ON O O N O O N.ON.O N.O N.O N.NN.N N 3:835 OOOOON O z N O O O O O O O O 2 OOO OONNOO OOO ONOOO OENON NONONNNNN NNOEN NON OONN NOENNNN N.N mpnwh 178 .xNO3 ONONN pagan—OONNNO ON NOOEOONOEO ENONnNNNO .NONNONOONOOOE OOO OONNOONNOOOO ON NOOEOO—Osm ENONnNNNO .OONO>ON_=O NONOONN n N OOONO>NNNOO n ONONNOO u N NOOOOOO NNO u N OOOOOOO um: u : NOON; OOOONNONNOO: u «N: NOON; OOOONNONN u «N "ouoz - - - - NON NON OON - OON ONN NNN - - - - OO - . ONOOON - - - - ON NO ONN - OO NON NON - - - - NN NNN - ONO: “N.ONON O Ox ONONN - - - - ON ON OO - OO OO OO - - - - - - - ONOOON - - - - OO OO OO ON OO OO OO - - - - - - - ONO: ON.ON=N fa: ONONNOOO - - NO - - - - O - - - ON - - - - - - ONOOON NOOOO - NON - OON - - - - - - - - ONN - OON - - - ONO: ON-ONNO NNOON - - - - - - - - - - - - OO - ON - NN NN OONOON NO: NNONOOON O - N - - - - - - - - N - N - - - N OONNOO NONOOO AOOOONV O O - N - - - - - - - - - n - - - - OONOOOO OOONOO NON N.N"NEONJ wag. 1N2 8.93.3221 1 13.. NN.N;NONNNNz llv . 1 13.. N.OH :5va 1.2: O.N ”8.32521 .w111 NONNO.N"NO.:NNOOz.uc 1 :2 OO.O;O.:NNOOIIv ONOONO N.NNN.NN N.NN N.NN NOON. ON O O N O O N.O N.O N.O N.O N.N N.N N OONNONONON OOOOON O x N O O O O O O O O 2 OOO OONNON OOO ONOOz OONON OOOOONNNN OONOO: NON OONO NOONOOO 0.0 ONOON l79 .xNOz ONONN NONOONOONNNO ON NOOENO—OEO ELONnNNNO .NONNONOONOOOE OOO OOONOONNOOOO ON NOOEOONOEO ELONnNNNO .OONO>ONNOO n NONOONH u N NOONO>NNNOO n ONONNOO u N NOOOOOO NNO u N NOOOOOO «O: u z NOON; OOOcNua—Ncoc n «N: "OOO; OOOONNONN n ON “muoz - - - - NN OO OON - OO ONN NON - - - - - - - ONOOON - - - - NO - OON - - OO ON - - - - - - - ONO: ON.ON=N to: 2...: - - - - ON ON OO - OO OO OO - - - - - - - ONOOON - - - - OO . OO - NO OO OO - - - - - - - ONO: ON.ON=N NOO: ONONNOOO - - OO - - - - OOO - - - NN - ON - OON - - ONOOON NOOOO - OON - OON - NO - OOO - - - - OON - OON OON OON - ONO: “N-OfiNO OOO - - - - - - - - - - - - NN - NN - NN ON OONNOO NO: NOONOOON N - N - - - - - - - - N - N - - - - OONNOO NONOOO AOOONNV nun n n ..4fi n n n n n n n n n n n n n n NON>OOz OONNON Ne. ONOHNOO OOO: 1 NpNON.O.NO.ONOOOz All ONONO Ne. NN.OHNO.ONNOOO+ l 10 l A NONNNOHNOONNOOOJ N2 2.93.3352 411:... N.O"OOON.ln||v n 33.92;:qu . N :2 NO.N.NO.3NOOzl|.v n ..O.. ON .223: NOOzulIv An N2 ON.N.NO.NNNOOIlv NOONNN N.NNN.NN N.NN N.NN N.ON N.ON O O N O O N.O N.O N.O N.O N.N N.N N 8:235 OOOOON O z N O O O O O O O O O NO: OONNON OOO 5.5: OENON OONONNNNN ONNON NON OONN NOENNON 0.0 «NOON 180 periods for both medium and large farms even though there might be a problem of family labor shortage and a need to hire-in labor. But the large farmer appears to spread out nonglutinous rice production in many more alternative periods than the medium farm household. It is inter- esting that the optimal solution recommends that the large farmer should grow some tractor-cultivated nonglutinous rice in both seasons besides buffalo-cultivated rice, while the Optimal plan for small and medium farms includes only the traditional rice production with buffalo-plow- ing. This suggests that it may be necessary for the large farm house- hold having a relatively small labor force to employ more labor-saving technology for its commercial rice production like renting two-wheel tractor. for land preparation even if it is more expensive than renting buffalo. However, the optimum solution for the large farm (containing only tobacco and rice) is a slightly different cropping pattern from the present mix of crops (with rice, tobacco and corn) found in the sample households. 6.1.2 Nonfarm Enterprises All three common cottage industries (i.e., cotton weaving, mat and basket making) found in the sample irrigated households enter the optimal plan in many periods for every farm size. Cotton weaving which was commonly performed by women during the dry season is recommended for periods 11.1, 12.1 and 12.2 for small and medium farms and only the two periods of 11.1 and 12.1 for the large farm. All female labor of the large farm was used up for rice production activities in period 12.2. For every farm size, mat making is proposed during the slack periods of rice production activities in the wet season (e.g., periods 1, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1), but not for any period of the dry season because it generates 181 relatively less income compared with cotton weaving. Basket making, which is the only one family industry performed by men alone, appears in many slack periods of rice production activities in both the wet and dry season for the optimal plan for every farm size. In absolute terms, the optimal solutions indicate that small and medium farm households can produce more fabric, mats and bamboo baskets than possible for the large farm household, as both the small and the medium farms have relatively more excess family labor compared to the large farm household. Thus, the small and medium farm households can allocate their excess family labor to these family industries during the slack periods of rice production activities. This result suggests that it is economically possible to improve household income through a combination of farm and nonfarm enterprises or cottage industries, especially for the farm household with excess family labor relative to its operational farm size. 6.1.3 Hire-In Labor The programming solutions of both medium and large farms include hiring in both male and female labor at 3.13 baht per hour in the periods having a peak demand for labor in rice planting and harvesting. There is no need for the small farm household to hire in any male or female labor for the rice production activities as it has a large family labor force related to its cropland area. In comparison, the large farm house- hold needs to hire in more labor than the medium farms in order to satisfy the optimal cropping pattern. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 indicate that in total about 460 hours of male labor and 69 hours of female labor are hired by the medium farm household, and 1,646 hours of male labor and 778 hours of female labor are hired in by the large farm household. These results show that when the area of land to crops become larger, "w 182 there is more need to hire in labor, especially for rice production activities. This type of relationship may help to understand that the local market for field workers is established and functions in a way such that the large farm household having a relatively small labor force needs additional labor during the peak periods of rice production activi- ties and thus has to search for labor from and offer payment to the small farm households having excess labor relative to the cropping requirements. In addition, the rice production sector can absorb sub- stantial local employment especially in the irrigated area where rice can be grown in both wet and dry seasons. 6.1.4 Off-Farm Work The optimal off-farm employment pattern differs by farm size. For the small farm, the household responds to all available off-farm employ- ment in field work and in construction or manufacturing even in the peak periods of rice production activities. Since the small farm household has more than enough family labor for the rice production activities, it has surplus labor to hire out. The households on medium-sized farms hires out substantial family labor to both field work and nonfield work according to the LP solution. But unlike small farms, these households have only a few hours of male labor and have no female labor to hire out in construction or manufacturing in period 8 which is the peak period for harvesting wet season rice. Moreover, there is no family labor either male or female available for other rice farmers to hire during period 8 (December) of the wet season and periods 11 and 12 (March and April) of the dry season because all of its family labor was used up in these periods for harvesting wet season rice (period 8) and for land preparation and planting for dry season rice (periods 11 and 12). For 183 the large farm household, family labor is also hired out to upland farmers and to nonfield work (construction and manufacturing). But it has no labor to hire out during the peak period of wet and dry season rice production activities since all of the family labor was used up and instead has to hire in additional labor during the peak periods of rice production activities as pointed out earlier. These results indi- cate that the small farm household nominates to hire out family labor as opportunities become available throughout the year, especially to local rice farmers who have relatively large-sized farms. The major supply of local hired labor for rice production is thus expected to come from the small farm household. This suggests that when the farm becomes larger, the opportunity for family labor to be hired by other rice farmers is decreased. However, programming solutions for every farm size also suggests that it is economically possible for the farm households even in the irrigated area to work in off-farm employment 0" a Part-time basis in addition to their farming and family industries under the given assumptions of the model. In addition, both classes of off-farm employment (i.e., agricultural field work and the work in manufacturing or construction) offering a wage ranging from 24 baht to 35 baht (or more) per day (or 3 baht to 4.38 baht per hour) are attrac- tive to male and female labor, especially for the small farm household to hire out. These two classes of off-farm employment are highly com- petitive with the family industries (cotton weaving, basket and mat making). 6.1.5 Borrowed Capital The programming solution results show that no capital was borrowed for every farm size of irrigated farms. This suggests that, under the 184 assumptions of the model, the operating capital of the farm household is not a limiting resource. This implies that the irrigated farm house- holds could be self-financed because according to the LP results, they could have cash from all sources to meet the Operating expenses of rice productiOn and their household needs. This result supports Sektheera's results from her analysis of irrigated farming systems (1979) indicat- ing that capital availability was not a major limiting resource as no capital was borrowed for any representative farm or case farm. 6.1.6 Nonbasis Enterprises Shadow Prices & Stability Coefficients Some alternative crop enterprises (glutinous and nonglutinous rice, glutinous corn and tobacco) and cottage industries (cotton weaving, mat and basket making) are excluded from the optimal plan in some periods for every farm size because these excluded enterprises are relatively less profitable compared to the other enterprises included in the plan. This can be seen from Table 6.5 which lists the enterprises that were excluded in certain periods and their shadow prices. With the exception of tobacco for small farm size, buffalo-cultivated nonglutinous rice is the most competitive crop for wet and dry seasons for both small and medium farms. This means that for given prices and yields and with more available resources, buffalo-cultivated nonglutinous rice has the high- est potential return compared to the other excluded crops for the small; and medium farms. For the large farm, as all alternatives of buffalo- cultivated nonglutinous rice for wet and dry seasons have already enter- ed the optimal plan, buffalo-cultivated glutinous and nonglutinous rice become the most economically desirable crop for the farmer in wet and dry seasons, respectively, compared to the other excluded crOps which have relatively large shadow prices. .OONO>NNNOOnNONOONN n N NNONO>NNNOOnONONNOO n N NOOOOOO ONN N NOOOOOO NO: n 3 ”Opoz OO0-00N OOO ON OON N.NN OONN OONOOON N.NN ON O OONN OONOOON N.NN OO O N.NN ON O NONONOOO N ”ONOON NOO.N.NOO N.NN.N.O OON N.NN.N.O OON N.O OONNOO NONOOO OOO.NON.NOO N.O.N.N.N.N NON.OON.OON N.O.N.N.N.N N.O ON N.N OOO ON NOO NOO ON NOO NOO ON NOO EONN NONNOON N.NN ON N EONN NOONOON N.NN ON N EONN NONNOON N.NN ON N AONOE NN "NNONV OO0.000.000 N.O.N.O.N.N NOO.NOO.NOO N.O.N.O.N.N NOO N.O.N.O.N.N OONNOO NOO 0.00 N.NN.N.NN 0.00 N.NN O.NN N.NN.O ON NOOONO OOO ”ONNOON O.NN N.ON.N.ON.O O.NN N.ON.N.ON.O O.NN N.ON.O OONOOOO OONNOO OON.NOO.N N.N.NN OOO N.NN OOO N.N.NN ONOO OOOONNONO OON.OON 0.0 ON N.O O0.0 N.O OOOOOON NW OON.NN N.ON.O OON.OON.ONN N.NN.N.ON.O NNN.OON.ON N.NN.N.ON.O NN.ON OOOONOONOOOZ 1. n- -- N.O N OO.OO.OO N.NN.O NO.ON OONO OOOONNONOOOZ OON.OON.OON N.NN.N.ON.O OON.OON.ONN N.NN.N.ON.O OO.NNN.NNN N NN.N.ON.O NN.ON OONO OOOONNONO ONN.ONN.NN N.NN.N.ON.O ON.OON.ON N.NN.N.ON.O NNN.OON.ON N.NN.N.ON.O NOON OONO OOOONNONO NO.OO N.N.O ONN.NNN.OON N.O.N.N.N 0.0.00 N.O.N.N.N NN.ON OONO OOOONNONOOOO -- -- N.O N N.N.N.N.O.O N.O.N.N.N NO.OV OONO OOOONNONOOOO ON.N0.0N N.O.N.N.N ONN.ONN.OON N O.N.O.N ONN.ONN.NON N.O.N.N.N NN.3N OONO OOOONNONO 0.0.N N.O.N N.O N.O.N ON.OO N.O.N NO.:N OONO OOOONNONO NOONNNN NONNON ANON\NV NOONON NNONNNV OONNON OONNONONON OONNN 3OOONN OONNN 3ONONN OOONN 3OOOON ENON ONNON ELON EONOOz ENON NNOEN OOONN ONON ENON NO OENON OONONNNNN :O OOOONONONON ONOOONOZ NON OOONNN 3ONOON N.N NNNOO 186 Among the excluded cottage industries for every farm size, cotton weaving shows the strongest competitive position compared to the excluded mat making in the dry season. This suggests that mat making is less economically desirable than cotton weaving for the irrigated farms during the dry season under the given price and production technology. Thus, mat making is never included in the optimal plan for the irrigated farms. If compared with the shadow prices of excluded basket making--the only available family industry, performed by men, across the farm size class--the shadow prices of excluded mat making for medium and large farms are larger than those for the small farms in many periods. This suggests that the excluded basket making is likely to be preferred by the small farm over medium and large farms if the excluded basket making were forced in the Optimal solution by some means. The income penalties of forcing one unit of basket making for medium and large farm households is higher than for small farm households. Table 6.6 shows the upper bound stability coefficients or the high- est value of the gross margin (per unit of production) of the excluded nonfarm enterprises for which there was no change in the optimal plan. Comparing the upper bound stability coefficients of the excluded cotton weaving with its present gross margin of 575 baht per 16 pieces of cot- ton fabric (Appendix Table 18) it may need to raise the gross margin from 1.9 to 6.3 percent of the current gross margin to bring excluded cotton weaving in certain periods into the optimal solution for every farm size class. For basket making, the gross margin of basket making needs to be increased at least 659 percent of its current gross margin (22 baht per 2 baskets, Appendix Table 19) to make excluded basket mak- ing become a viable alternative for the small irrigated farm households, l87 Table 6.6 Upper Bound Stability Coefficients of Excluded Nonfarm Enterprises, Irrigated Farm Households The Highest Value of Gross Margin of Excluded Nonfarm Enterprises Cotton Weaving Basket Making Mat Making 13/16 Pieces) (B/2 Baskets) (8/60 Mats) Period S M L S M L S M L 1 -- -- -- -- _- -- -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -- 167 167 212 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -- 167 167 174 584 584 584 3.1 -- -- -- 167 219 443 -- -- -- 3.2 -- -- -- -- -— -- 584 609 609 4.1 -- -- -- 167 167 453 -- -- -- 4.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 584 584 609 5 -- -- -- 167 167 167 584 584 584 6 -- -- -- 167 167 167 584 584 584 7 -- -- -— 167 167 249 584 584 584 8 -- -- -- 168 249 174 584 609 609 9 586 586 586 167 167 167 584 584 584 10.1 586 586 586 167 181 174 584 584 584 10.2 586 586 611 167 167 167 573 573 573 11.1 -- -- -- 167 174 174 573 573 573 11.2 586 611 611 -- -- -- 584 584 609 12.1 -- -- -- 167 174 174 584 609 609 12.2 -- -- 611 -- -- -- 573 573 609 Note: S = small farm size; M = medium farm size; L = large farm size. 188 while it needs to be increased substantially; in the range of 659 to L959 percent from its present gross margin to make basket making in certain periods to be profitable alternatives for medium and large ir- rigated farm households. In the case of excluded mat making, it may need to raise the gross margin from 132 to 147 percent of its present gross margin of 247 baht per 60 mats (Appendix Table 6) to bring excluded mat making in certain periods into the optimal solution for every farm size class in the ir- rigated area. 6.2 Optimal Labor Utilization Pattern The optimal labor utilization pattern for each farm size class of the irrigated farms suggested by the programming solutions is summarized and presented in Tables 6.7 to 6.9. It should be mentioned here that the figures in terms of the percentage of family labor use for crop, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm employment may not add up to 100 in some periods due to some unused labor hours. For the small farm, male labor is fully utilized by allocating 23 percent of the available labor to crop production, 19 percent to nonfarm enterprise (mat and basket making) and 58 percent to off-farm employment. Females spent about 11 percent of their available labor for crop pro- duction, 20 percent for mat making and cotton weaving and 54 percent for off-farm employment, leaving about 15 percent of labor unemployed (Table 6.7). These slack labor periods for females occur in periods 1 (May), 2.1 (first half of June), 3.1 (first half of July) and 4.1 (first half of August) because no children are available to help females in weaving mats in these periods. Although only 19 percent of available child l89 .ONO>NNOOOOON .O—OONNO>O ONOO; NOOON NONON NO NOOONONO .OONONNOO n N OOONOEON u N NOONOE u z NONOz O.OO NOON O.OO O.NO O.ON O.ON O.ON O.ON 0.0N OON OON OON ONOOONON O.OOO.N OON.O O OOO.N O ONN.N O.NNN O.ONO 0.00N 0.0NO 0.000 NOO ONO.N OON.O ONOOO NOOON NOOON OON .. O.OO -- O.OON -- -- N.OO OO OON NON N.NN NOOON OON O.NN -- -- -- 0.00 O.ON 0.00 NN NON NON N.NN NOOON OON -- O.ON -- N.OO -- 0.0N 0.00 NN NON NON N.NN NOOON OON O.OON 0.00N -- -- -- -- -- ON OON OON N.ON NOOON OON O OON N.OO -- -- -- -- 0.0N ON OON OON N.ON NOOON OON 0.00 O.OO -- -- -- O.N O.N OO NON ONN O NOOON OON 0.00 0.00 -- -- -- O.NN 0.0 OO NNN ONO O NOOON OON O.NO 0.00 -- -- -- 0.00 N.OO OO NON NOO N NOOON OON 0.00 N.OO -- -- -- 0.0 O.O OO OON NNO O NOOON OON O.OON 0.00 -- n- -- -- O.O NO NON NON O NOOON OON O OON -- -- -- N.NO -- O.N OO OON ONN N.O NOOO OON -- 0.00 O.OON O.OO .. -- N.NN OO OON ONN N.O O OON OON O.NO -- -- -- O.OO N.NO 0.00 NN NON OON N.O O.ON OON -- N.ON O.OON O.NN -- O.N 0.00 NN NON OON N.O NOOON OON 0.00N O OON -- n- -- n- -- OO ONN OON N.N O.OO OON -- 0.00 O.OON O.OO : -- O.NN OO ONN OON N.N NOOO OON .. -- 0.00N O.ON O.OO 0.00 0.00 OO NON ONN N N O N O O N z N O O N z OONNON OONNONNNNNO ONON-NNO ONONOOz OONO N.OezveNOONNOOO NOOONON NON NOON NOOON ONOEON ONOONNO>< NO NOOONON NONON NNNEON OONON OONOONNNN NNOOO NO OONOONNNNNO NOOOO NO ONONNOO NOENOOO N.N NFNON 190 .ONO>NOOOOOOL .ONOONNO>O ONOO; NONOO NO NOOONONO .OONONNOO u u NOONOEON u N OOONOE u z "ONOz O.N N.ON o.mm N.OO 0.0N 0.0N o.m O.NO 0.00 0.00N 0.00N 0.00N OOOOONON mm OOO o.moo.N 0.0NN.N 0.00N O.Nmm O.NON 0.0¢~.N o.mmw.N meo.N ONO.N em~.m ONOOI NONoN .. -- -- -- .. O.NO m.mo N.NO N.Nm NN ONN ONN N.NN -- NON .. -- u- 0.00 a- 0.00 0.00N NN ONN ONN N.NN NO -- -- -- n- -- 0.0N 0.00N N.ON Om mNN emN N.NN -- mmN -- u- .. 0.0N -- 0.0N 0.00N mm ONN emN N.NN -- -- 0.00N 0.00N .. u- -- -- .. ow ONN OON N.ON .. -- 0.00N 0.0N .. -- -- .. N.ON ow ONN OON N.ON -- -- N.OO 0.00 -- u- -- 0.0 o. mm NON OON O O -- -- N.O .. u- .. 0.00N 0.00 ONN OON ONO w -- -- N.NO N.NO -- u- .. O.NO N.NO em OON OON N -- -- N.OO 0.0N -- u- -- 0.0 0.0N mo NNN mom O -- -- 0.00 0.0N .. u- -- -- 0.0 ON ONN OON m ON -- -- n- -- -- O.NO 0.00N O.NO Om OON NON N.O -- ONN .. .. 0.00N 0.0N .. .. 0.00N Om OON NON N.O .. -- u- u- -- .. O.NO 0.00N O.Nm me OON OON ~.m .. moN -- -- 0.00N 0.00 -- 0.0N 0.00N me MON OON N.m -- u- 0.0 0.00 .. u- -- N.OO O.NO mm ONN OON N.N -- u- -- N.NN 0.00N 0.00 -- o. O.NN mm ONN OON N.N .. -- -- -- O.NN N.ON N.O 0.00 m.mm mm OON OON N N z N 2 O N z N 2 O N z OONNON N.ONIV ELONuNNo ELONOOZ OONU N.w$; ONOONNO>< NOOOO OONNI NON OOO: NOOOO ONNEON ONOONNO>< NO OOOONON NOOOO ONNEON OELON OmaOmNNNN EONOOZ NO OONNONNNNO: LOOOO NO ONOONON NOeNpOo m.c mpnmh 191 .ONO>NOOOOOOL .ONOONNO>O ONOO; NOOOO NO OOOONONO .OONONNOO n O NOONOEON u N NOONOE “muoz 0.0N O.NO 0.0N 0.0N 0.0N 0.0N N.O N.OO 0.0N 0.00N 0.00N 0.00N OOOOONON OON OOO.N O.NNO 0.0NO O.NNN O.NON 0.00N 0.000.N O.NOm.~ NOO NNN.N ONN.m ONOOI NOOON -- -- u- u- -- .. O.Nm 0.00N O.NO NO OON OON N.NN -- OON .. -- -- 0.0N .. 0.00 0.00N NO OON OON N.NN Om -- u- -- u- .. N.NN 0.00N 0.0N mm NO OON N.NN .. OON .. -- a- 0.00 .. 0.0m 0.00N ON NO OON N.NN -- -- O.Nm O.NO .. -- .. N.NO 0.0m NN OON OON N.ON -- NO 0.0N -- u- -- -- 0.0N 0.00N NN OON OON N.ON .. u- 0.00 N.NO .. -- -- 0.0 0.0 NO OON NON O OOO OOO -- u- u- -- -- 0.00N 0.00N NO OON ONO O -- -- 0.00 N.NN -- -- .. N.OO O.NO Om OON OON N u- -- 0.00N 0.00 n- n- u- .. N.OO NO ONN MON O -- -- 0.00N O.NO -- u- -- -- N.NO we OON OON O NN -- u- -u -- -- N.NN 0.00N O.NN OO OON OON N.O -- OON .. -- 0.00N N.OO .. .. 0.00N OO OON OON N.O ON I- -- u- -- .. 0.0N 0.00N N.ON ON ONN OON N.O .. OON -- .. 0.00N 0.0N .. 0.0N 0.00N ON ONN OON N.O OON OON .. -- -u u- -- 0.00N 0.00N NN NON OON N.N -- OON .. -- 0.00N O.Nm .. 0.0N 0.00N NN NON OON N.N .. -- -- -- O.NN O.NN .. N.NN 0.00N mm OON OON N N z N 2 O N z N 2 O N z OONNON N.OO; NEONNNO NEONOOZ qONO ~30..sz ONOONNO>< NOOOO OONN: NON OOO: NOOOO NHNEON ONOONNO>< NO OOOONON NOOOO ONNEON OSLON OOOOONNNN OONOO NO OONOONNNNOO LOOOO NO ONOOOON NOENNOO 0.0 mpnmh l92 labor are utilized under the optimal plan, children have shown their important contribution for mat making in periods 2.l, 3.l and 4.1. For the medium farm, the optima] plan indicates that all men are fully employed by sharing 56, 8 and 36 percent of their available labor to crop production (rice, tobacco and corn), cottage industry (basket making) and off-farm employment, respectively (Table 6.8). Females are nearly fully employed under this plan as only l05 hours or less than 4 percent of their available labor being unused. Again, this slack is due to a shortage of children's time to participate in mat making in periods 2.1, 3.l and 4.l. Females are computed to allocate 42 percent of their available labor for crop production, 19 and 36 percent for family industries (cotton weaving and mat making) and off-farm employ- ment, respectively. Children's contribution to mat making appears in periods 2.], 3.l and 4.] during the wet season when all of their labor is fully used. Under this optimal plan, the medium farm households may need to hire in 460 hours of male labor (or l4 percent of their avail- able male labor) and 69 hours of female labor (or 2 percent of their available female labor) for rice production activities. In the case of large irrigated farms, the programming results recom- ment to allocate more than half of female and male family labor to rice, and tobacco production. To follow this plan, all males are fully employed by allocating 76, 7 and l7 percent of their labor to crop pro- duction, family industry and off-farm employment, respectively. Only 5 percent of the labor of females is unused because 55 percent of female labor is devoted to crop production and lO and 30 percent are also al- located to cottage industry and off-farm work, respectively (Table 6.9). Again, children in the large farm household labor force participate 193 significantly in mat making activities during periods 2.l, 3.l and 4.] when all of their available labor are used up in these periods. The optimal plan for the large farm also suggests that a substantial number of hours of labor should be hired in for rice production activities. Table 6.8 indicates that about 1,646 hours of male labor (or 52.8 percent of available male family labor) and 778 hours of female labor (or 29 percent of available female family labor) are hired in by the large farm households. These conclusions are summarized from the above optimal utilization pattern for each farm size: (1) When the operational size of irrigated farms become larger, the share of adult labor proportional to their available labor for crop production increases substantially. The need to supplement farming enter- prise with nonfarm/off-farm employment diminishes. (2) Conversely, the portion of family labor allocated to either cottage industries or off-farm employment decreases when the farm size increases. For small farms, the family industries as well as off-farm employment become an even more important source for providing income and employment to the family members. (3) Hire-in labor becomes increasingly important for the large farm households if they are to fully utilize their farmland. This may imply that the local employment for farm households, especially the ones who have relatively large labor forces, can be generated through the rice production sector in particular to irrigated areas where intensive rice production is permitted at least twice a year. (4) Children are important for the family industry of mat making in many periods during the wet season, as all of their labor is used up and becomes the most limiting resource in these certain periods. l94 (5) It is economically possible for the farm households even in the intensive agriculture area to combine some viable alternative of cot- tage industries and part-time off-farm employment, e.g., local agri- cultural field work and construction with the farming business. 6.3 Shadow Prices of Land and Labor The shadow prices of the land and family labor obtained from the linear programming model are discussed in this section. As available land in wet and dry seasons for each farm size are fully utilized, its shadow price can be obtained from the programming results. Paddy land appears to be one of the most limiting resources in both wet and dry seasons for every farm size of the irrigated farms, eSpecially for the small farm as it has relatively high shadow prices of land compared to medium and large farms. For the small farm, the shadow price of wet season land and dry season land is 889 baht and 332 baht per rai, respectively. The shadow price of land is about 536 and 297 baht per rai in wet and dry seasons for the medium farm, while the large farm has a shadow price of wet season land of l95 baht per rai and 125 baht per rai for the dry season land. The relatively high shadow price of cropland for the small farm household compared to the ones for medium and large sized farm households may imply that the expansion of farm size (farmland) would be more beneficial for the small farm house- hold than for the medium and large farm households. Table 6.10 shows the shadow price of family labor by age and sex for each farm size. In the case of small farms, the shadow price of male labor ranges from 0.4 baht to 3.0 baht per hour, while ranging from 2.9 baht to 3 baht per hour for female labor. In comparison, on the basis of the shadow prices, both male and female labor for medium and large Table 6.10 The Shadow Prices of Selected Resources of Irrigated Farms by Farm Size Class Large Farm Medium Farm Small Farm Shadow Price Shadow Price (B/Unit) Period (B/Unit) Period (B/Unit) Shadow Price Period Resource l,2.l,2.2 3.l,3.2,4.l 4.2,!5,6 7-l2.2 Male Labor l—‘N r-N NLD I—t— . 0 I! or) “O‘NI— “ O o o mmooom 0 0‘ .r—r- NNN a a " 0 F—r— l—Q’ o 0 OF- l—F- 2.2,3.2,4.2 5-10.2 ll.l,ll.2 12.1,12.2 Female Labor Q'Q' NN 2.1 3.l,4.l 2.1 3.l,4.l CO mm m 2.9 ll.l,ll.2 lZ.l,lZ.2 Child Labor Ch 2 196 farms are more often limiting resources compared to the small farm, especially during the peak periods of rice production activities such as period 8 (harvesting wet season rice) and period l2.l (planting dry season rice). For the labor of children, all available time is exhausted 'in periods 2.l, 3.l, 4.l with a shadow price of 2.4 baht per hour being revealed for every farm size. This shadow price gives insight into the economic value of children's labor, an area on which little research has been done. 6.4 Comparison of Actual and Model Results The main focus of this study is on the income and employment of the rural farm households. Thus, two key variables of household income earned by source and labor allocation to farm, nonfarm enterprise and off-farm are chosen for the comparison of actual and programming results. The actual results for household income and labor utilization are obtain- ed from the project Phase 11 survey on the average basis of baht per sample household for income variables. The comparison of both results by farm size class are summarized and presented in Table 6.11. It should be kept in mind that the reported farm income includes the objective function value from the model plus other farm income from selling vegetable, fruit and poultry, activities which were deliberately excluded from the model specification. For the small irrigated farm, both model and actual results show a relatively large portion of family net income coming from farm and off- farm employment. But, the model indicates a substantially higher portion of family net income from cottage industries and a slightly higher por- tion of family income from off-farm employment than the actual results. The model results suggest that the small farm household should allocate 197 Table 6.11 Comparison of Actual and Model Results of Irrigated Farms Small Farm Medium Farm Large Farm Item Actual Model Actual Model Actual Model Net Income (Baht): Farm 9,535 9,375 18,941 21,575 25,047 33,937 (54.7) (40.9) (75.6) (71.6) (84.2) (86.4) Nonfarm 68 1,591 56 1,231 313 542 (0.4) (6.9) (0.2) (4.1) (1.0) (1.4) Off-Farm 7,842 11,949 6,041 7,311 4,398 4,791 (44.9) (52.2) (24.1) (24.3) (14.8) (12.2) Total Income 17,445 22,915 25,038 30,117 29,758 39,270 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Labor Utilization (Hour): Farm Male 1,543 1,918 1,805 2,680 2,168 3,204 (53 4) (39.8) (74.0) (65.0) (87.6) (81.0) Female 1,540 1,906 1,590 2,350 1,714 2,579 (59.6) (46.8) (59.5) (59.2) (64.4) (70.1) Child 466 380 723 874 541 696 (83 6) (75.7) (85.0) (84.9) (89.4) (86.3) Non- Male 95 730 244 262 160 130 farm (3.3) (15.2) (10.0) (6.4) (6.5) (3.3) Female 151 574 405 551 537 287 (5.8) (14.1) (15.2) (13.9) (20.2) (7.8) Child 91 122 128 155 64 111 (16.4) (24.3) (15.0) (15.1) (10.6) (13.7) Off- Male 1,253 2,170 390 1,170 147 623 Farm (43.3) (47.0) (16.0) (28.6) (5.9) (15.7) Female 891 1,594 676 1,068 410 811 (34.5) (39.1) (25.3) (26.9) (15.4) (22.1) Total Male 2,981 4,818 2,439 4,142 2,475 3,957 Labor (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Use Female 2,582 4,074 2,657 3,969 2,661 3,677 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Child 557 502 851 1,029 605 807 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Note: Figures in parentheses are a percentage. 198 proportionately more family labor to cottage industries and off-farm employment than the actual situation. Both actual and programming results for medium farms show the largest share of family net income being provided by farm enterprises while the income from off-farm employment proportional to family income is second only to the farm income. These model results are consistent in general with the actual results in that the farm households devote a large portion of family labor to farm enterprises, but also allocate some of the family labor to cottage industries and off-farm employment for supplemental income earnings. The labor utilization pattern which appears in the programming solutions are similar to actual results on the basis of the rankings according to family labor use. Next to the farm enterprises, off-farm employment provided the largest share of family labor use. But, the programming results suggest a lower proportion of male family labor being spent on cottage industires and a higher proportion in off-farm employ- ment. This means that the actual medium-sized farmer should allocate more male labor from basket making to off-farm work in agricultural field work and construction or manufacturing as basket making contributes relatively less to family income. For the large farms, likewise, the model provided results expressed as proportional composition of income which were similar to the actual farm results having farm income as the largest portion of family income. In addition, the model results also suggest that to the extent possible, the sample farm household should shift more male and female labor from cottage industries to off-farm work during the periods which off-farm employment opportunities are available. 199 In general, the model results seem to be able to reflect the way that the actual farm households behave in earning family income from different sources and in the way family labor and other resources are allocated to farm, cottage industries and off-farm employment. The model results also show some possible alternatives for households on ir- rigated farms to improve their family income and employment by some re- allocation of labor to farm, cottage industries and off-farm employment. These comparisons have been cognizant of the difficulties for mak- ing comparisons explained in Chapter 5. For this reason, the conclu- sions have been expressed in rather general terms. CHAPTER 7 SIMULATION ANALYSIS: EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALTERNATIVE FARM, NONFARM ENTERPRISES AND OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT The optimum organizations for rainfed and irrigated farm households with size differences were discussed and presented in Chapters 5 and 6 in order to assess the economic consequences from combining farm, non- [farm enterprises and off-farm employment under the given constraint sets and conditions facing the sample households. Further analysis will be pursued in this chapter by simulating situations which vary from the base model presented in the previous chapters in order to trace out the effect of alternative nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportuni- ties, including alternative crop enterprises during the dry season (i.e., for irrigated farms) on household income and employment in the rainfed and irrigated areas. Since the base models evaluated the farm size as a dependent vari- able, this analysis will consider only the medium sized irrigated farms. By definition, this farm size class represents 50 percent of sample farms in both rainfed and irrigated areas. The several assumed situations to be examined for medium farm size in both areas are as follows: (1) Change assumptions regarding off-farm employment opportunities and wages. (a) Assume no off-farm employment opportunities. 200 201 (b) Assume off-farm employment opportunities are expanded throughout the dry season periods. (c) Assume wages are increased by 10 and 30 percent above those used in the base model. (2) Change assumptions regarding some nonfarm enterprise alterna- tives to permit year-round availability of sericulture in the rainfed area and year-round cotton weaving in the irrigated area. (3) Variation in the main crop yield (rice) due to the uncertainty condition faced in the rainfed area. (4) Fully irrigated situation with one new alternative cash crop of tomato in dry season for the irrigated farms. 7.1 Simulation Analysis for the Rainfed Farms 7.1.1 Situation 1: Eliminate Off-Farm Employment Opportunities Even the assumed off-farm employment opportunities are relative more profitable than many nonfarm enterprises found in the villages, but in reality, the opportunity to work off-farm especially in construc- tion or manufacturing may be limited for many farm household members because of the employers' skill education or physical requirements. The extreme situation without off-farm employment opportunities is examined to see how farm and nonfarm enterprises interact under this circumstance with all other assumptions held fixed. It can be seen clearly from Table 7.1 that without off-farm employ- ment opportunities, the rainfed farm households' family net income for saving (or investment) decreases by 46.4 percent from the base model. The absence of off-farm employment opportunities has no effect on the composition of crop mix because all available land was fully utilized 202 Table 7.1 Results of a Change in Off-Farm Employment Opportunities for the Rainfed Farms No OfféFarm ’More Oflearm 333:] Situation % Situation % Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 9,140 9,140 - 9,140 - Nonfarm 3,893 7,698 + 97.7 2,940 -24.5 Off-Farm 7,453 - * 10,084 +35.3 Total 1 20,486 16,838 - 17.8 22,164 + 8.2 Net for Saving 7,866 4,218 - 46.4 9,544 +21.3 Labor Use: (hour) Farm Male 2,042 2,042 - 2,042 - Female 1,118 1,118 - 1,118 - Nonfarm Male 328 1,145 +249.l 172 -47.6 Female 1,271 2,383 + 87.5 952 -25.1 Child 260 482 + 85.4 228 -12.3 Off-Farm Male 1,158 - * 1,643 +47.6 Female 1,112 - * 1,431 +28.7 Hired Labor Male 71 71 - 71 - Female - - - - - Slack Labor Male 872 1,095 + 31.7 424 -51.4 Female - - - - - Child 362 143 - 60.5 396 + 9.4 Borrowed Capital (baht) 2,603 2,645 + 1.6 2,603 - Note: % = percentage change from the base model. 1Excluding the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 203 for the rainy season in the base models. It would force the family members to be more fully employed in cottage industry activities to com- pensate for the lost income from off-farm employment. The amount of silk fabric and sticky rice containers produced was increased by 33 and 275 percent respectively from the base model, while the production of silk yarn (from sericulture) remain unchanged as all of child labor was already exhausted in the periods that sericulture is practiced. Mat making is less competitive than the other cottage industries and it still does not appear in the new optimal solutions. Under this assumed situation without off-farm employment opportunities, 'the rainfed farm households would allocate more male, female and child labor to sticky rice container making and more females to silk weaving. Despite the lack of off-farm employment opportunities the available hours of females are still fully employed and children employment in- creases by 6.1 percent from the base model, because the time of females can be employed by the silk weaving industry and sticky rice container making whereas childrens labor can be employed by sticky rice container making. However, the male employment situation is worse under this as— sumed situation because the slack of male labor (unemployment) increases by 25 percent from the base model. In addition, the absence of off-farm employment opportunities causes the rainfed farmers to borrow little more capital (cash) from BAAC (only 2 percent) than the base model due to the ability of rainfed farm households to earn additional income from cottage industry. In short, the above results demonstrate that if the rainfed farm households were to lose all off-farm employment opportunities, their family net income for saving drops substantially, to an extent which 204 cannot be compensated through more family labor involvement in cottage industry like silk weaving and sticky rice container making. It was observed that, employment for men was reduced without the off-farm em- ployment opportunities because men are assumed not to avail themselves for employment opportunities in cottage industry due to the nature of this endeavor as found in the rainfed area. 7.1.2 Situation II: More Off-Farm Employment Opportunities During recent years the Thai government has funded and implemented a program offering rural employment in the dry season (January to April) with a wage averaging nearly the same as that assumed for construction and manufacturing in the base model. In addition, some new agricultural processing industries such as a paper pulp mill has been promoted and established in Khon Kaen near the study area. This paper pulp mill plans to operate at least from September to the end of the dry season (April) and expects to offer a wage equal to other agricultural processing in- dustries. Thus, it is reasonable and interesting to project the conse- quence of the government funded program as well as the pulp mill on the rainfed farm household income and employment by allowing the rainfed farm households to have more opportunities to hire out their family 1a- bor in manufacturing or government funded program than in the base model for two additional periods of March and April. For the lower-wage off- farm employment in agricultural field work, the rainfed farm households are also allowed to hire out their family to the irrigated rice farmers during the dry season. To be precise, the rainfed families are provided more opportunities to hire out their labor to rice farmers in March (period 11) and April (period 12) in addition to the ones assumed in 205 the base model. The consequence of this assumed situation on household income and employment are presented in Table 7.1. Under this assumed situation, the family net income for saving increased by 21 percent from the base model. These additional off-farm employment opportunities leave the crop mix unchanged compared to the base model. The result is a reduction in the use of family labor for cottage industry (silk weav- ing and sticky rice container making) during the March-April period when off-farm employment would increase. The share of male and female labor to off-farm farm employment increase by 48 and 29 percent from the base model respectively. From an employment viewpoint, men are better off under this assumed situation because their slack labor (un- employment) decreased by almost half from the base model, while unused labor of children increased by 9 percent from the base model. Again, females are still fully employed in this situation. One can conclude from this result that any kind of government funded program as well as manufacturing offering wages of 35 baht per day (or 4.48 baht per hour) for males and 30 baht per day (or 3.75 baht per hour) for females is sufficient to generate substantial local employ- ment, especially for men during the dry season in the rainfed area. This supports the researcher's observation that many rural households in the rainfed areas of the northeast region are very responsive to the current government funded program offering rural employment in the dry season. However, this kind of program aiming for an improvement in rural employ- ment may result in a reduction in the output for products like silk fabric and sticky rice containers in the rainfed area of the Northeast. 206 7.1.3 Situation III: Variation in Wage A change in the assumption regarding wages used in the base model for rainfed farms is examined under this section. According to personal interviews with some owners of agricultural processing factory in Khon Kaen and the rainfed farmers who hired in labor, the wage paid to the workers has tended to increase every year due to a rapid rise in the cost of living (or inflation). In addition, a change in minimum wage law imposed by the government caused many manufacturing owners to pay higher wage to the workers. Thus, an assumed situation with an arbi- trary increase in wages by 10 and 30 percent from those used in the 'base model is an experiment to project its consequences on household income and employment of the rainfed farms. When wages increase by 10 and 30 percent from the base model, family net income for saving increases 26 and 52 percent of the base model respectively (Table 7.2). Despite the assumed wage increases by 30 percent from the base model, the cropping pattern for the rainfed farmers remains unchanged from the base model. But an increased wage causes a production of silk yarn (sericulture) in July and November to become relatively less profitable for both the plus 10 percent and plus 30 percent levels compared with the off-farm employment for the rainfed farm household in these periods. Consequently, the farm households switch their family labor from sericulture to off-farm employment (in agricultural field work) in July and November. This can be seen through the new allocation of family labor in which women hire out more hours of their labor to off-farm employment by 9.4 percent from the base model (Table 7.2). The production of silk yarn thus reduced by 45 percent from the base model. Under this assumed situation, male 207 Table 7.2 Results of Variation in Wages for the Rainfed Farms Wage Rage 05—10% Wage Rate Up 20% Base . . . . Situation % Situation % ”0d91 III III Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 9,140 9,140 - 9,140 — Nonfarm 3,893 3,366 ~13.5 3,598 - 7.6 Off-Farm 7,453 9,988 +34.0 11,808 +34.0 Total 1 20,486 22,494 + 9.8 24,546 +19.8 Net for Saving 7,866 9,874 +25.5 11,926 +51.6 Labor Use: (baht) Farm Male 2,042 2,042 - 2,042 - Female 1,118 1,118 - 1,118 - Nonfarm Male 328 240 -26.8 240 -26.8 Female 1,271 1,166 - 8.3 1,166 - 8.3 Child 260 183 -29.6 183 -29.6 Off-Farm Male 1,158 1,158 - 1,158 - Female 1,112 1,217 + 9.4 1,217 + 9.4 Hired Labor Male 71 71 - 71 - Female - - - - - Slack Labor Male 872 842 - 3.0 842 - .0 Female - - - - - Borrowed Capital (baht) 2,603 2,407 — 7.5 2,407 - 7.5 Note: 1 % = percentage change from the base model. Exclude the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 208 employment has benefited indirectly from the wage-increase situation as it increased (i.e., slack male labor decrease) by 3 percent from the base model. More male labor would be employed in sticky rice container making activities in August while some female labor in this month have given up the practice of sericulture (in July to August) in favor of a higher wages in the off-farm employment opportunity. However, even though the rainfed farm households seem to have a higher net income under the assumed situation with increased wage, any policy attempting to raise wages for rural workers like a minimum wage law should take account possible adverse consequences on cottage indus- tries like sericulture and the related industry of silk-weaving. The silk weaving industry may face a short run shortage of supply of silk yarn in this area which is the main raw material for this industry and, in turn, disturb the textile industries depending on a reliable supply of silk fabric. 7.1.4 Situation IV: Two Additional Production Periods for Sericulture The base model allowed the rainfed farm to practice sericulture for only 4 times across the year due to a bind on the supply of mul- berry leaf as mentioned earlier. But it is possible for the households to practice sericulture for maximum of 6 times across the year if they could produce enough mulberry leaf for feeding silk worms. This problem has been realized by the Royal Thai government and thus many programs and much research have been promoted and conducted to overcome the prob- lem in the Northeast region because sericulture is one of the rural in- dustries strongly supported by the government for improving rural house- hold income in this region. For instance, several agricultural research 209 efforts for finding a new high-yielding variety of mulberry tree have been conducted at local experiment stations under the Ministry of Agri- culture and by Khon Kaen University. It would have high potential for the rainfed farm households to be able to fully practice sericulture for 6 times across the year. Some hope is being provided by the current government program on sericulture. Thus, it is appropriate to examine the situation by providing over the base model two additional production periods for sericulture to be practiced in period 5 (September) and period 9 (January). Under this assumed situation, the two new alternatives of sericulture are included in the optimal solution. This result suggests that it is feasible for the rainfed farm households to practice sericulture for the maximum of 6 times across the year if the mulberry problem is resolved. Adding two sericulture production periods in the farm plan can generate nearly 2 percent more household net income for saving than the base model (Table 7.3). Most increased net income comes from the production and sale of 572 grams of silk yarn in period 5 (September) and 619 grams in period 9 (January). The optimum cropping pattern under the new situation remains unchanged from the base model. Two additional alter- natives for sericulture entering in the new optimal solutions causes the farm household to switch more family labor (female) from off-farm employment in agricultural field work to sericulture (in periods 5 and 9). Consequently, the income from wages dropped by 6 percent from the base model (Table 7.3). This assumed situation may not help to in- crease female employment as all of their assumed labor available for productive activities were already fully employed. Neither female nor male employment changes from the base model. Since all of the assumed 210 Table 7.3 Results of a Change in Nonfarm Enterprises Base More Sericulture Without—Silk Weaving Model Situstion % Situation % Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 9,140 9,140 - 9,140 - Nonfarm 3,893 4,489 +15.3 3,057 -21 5 Off-Fann 7,453 7,000 - 6.1 7,453 - Total 20,486 20,629 + 0.7 19,650 - 4.1 Net for Saving 7,866 8,009 + 1.8 7,030 ~10.6 Labor Use: (hour) Farm Male 2,042 2,042 - 2,042 - Female 1,118 1,118 - 1.118 - Nonfarm Male 328 328 - 594 +81.0 Female 1,271 1,422 +ll.9 1,083 -14.8 Child 260 337 +29.6 236 + 9.2 Off-Farm Male 1,158 1,158 - 1,158 - Female 1,112 961 -l3.6 1,112 - Hired Labor Male 71 71 - 71 - Female - - - - - Slack Labor Male 872 872 - 488 -44.0 Female - - - 188 +188.0 Child 362 286 -21.0 337 + 7.2 Borrowed Capital (baht) 2,603 2,603 - 3,324 +27.7 Note: % = percentage change from the base model. 1Excluding the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 211 female labor available for productive work was already used up in the base model and whereas males cannot take advantage from sericulture which is commonly practiced by women and children. This assumed situation points out that there is room for additional cottage industries like sericulture to improve the household income in the rainfed area if production bottlenecks are removed. 7.1.5 Situation V: No Silk Weaving Enterprise The previous analysis of the base model (in Chapter 5) revealed that silk weaving was a profitable cottage industry for rainfed farm _households. However, in practice, there is a skill involved in the silk weaving enterprise required for grading silk thread, designing the pattern warping and finally weaving (Suphanchaimat, 1981).‘ Taking into account this skill constraint, it is desirable to trace out the impact of a skills barrier on the silk weaving enterprise. The model therefore stimulates this extreme situation having no silk weaving en- terprise for the rainfed farms. Under this assumed situation, the rainfed farm households would have a reduction in the family net income for saving by 11 percent from the base model (Table 7.3). Consequently, it causes the rainfed farmers to borrow operating capital from BAAC by ZBpercent more than the base model. Moreover, female unemployment which never occurred in the previous base model results, becomes ap- parent because silk weaving can be performed by women alone. Without silk weaving, it is interesting that mat making enterprise which never appeared in the base model results, as discussed earlier, becomes an economically viable alternative enterprise for the rainfed farmers to perform in a certain period (e.g. June). The new optimal solutions 212 shows no change in the optimal crop mix. The production of silk yarn remains unchanged. Whereas the production of sticky rice containers in- creases substantially from the base model. When the matter of family employment by age and sex is examined under this assumed situation without silk weaving enterprise, despite women employment being worse off, men and children employment increase by 44 and 7 percent from the base model results respectively. 1.7.6 Situation VI: Variation in Crop Yield To enable the programming analysis in the study to go beyond the static point of view, some risk and uncertainty situations which are expected to be faced by the rainfed farmers are considered in this sec- tion. Variation in the crop yield has been experienced by many Thai rainfed farmers because of uncertain or erratic weather and climatic conditions e.g. severe rainstorm or drought. For instance, a severe rainstorm hit the northeast region in Thailand and caused flooding on some rainfed areas including the study area in Khon Kaen Province. It damaged rice in the lowland fields which in turn caused a drop in pro- duction of rice of the rainfed farmers. The basic model assumed normal rice yields. For this experiment, the main crop yield (rice) was assumed to decrease by 10 and 20 percent from the normal level (250 kgs per rai) used in the base model, while other things were held constant. The projected consequences of crop yield variation in terms of household income and labor utilization can be seen in Table 7.4 Reduction in crop yield results in a drop in family net income for saving from the base model results as expected because of a substantial decrease in crop income. It was interesting 213 Table 7.4 Results for Crop Yield Variation for the Rainfed Farms Crop Yield Down 10% Crop Yield Down 20% Base . . Situa- % Situa- % ___ ‘_ MOdE] tion tion Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 9,140 7,755 -15.1 6,376 -30.2 Nonfarm 3,893 3,893 - 3,893 - Off-Farm 7,453 7,453 - 7,453 - Total 1 20,486 19,101 - 7.3 17,722 -13.5 Net for Saving 7,866 6,481 -17.6 5,102 -35.1 Labor Use: (hour) Farm Male 2,042 2,042 - 2,042 - Female 1,118 1,118 - 1,118 - Nonfarm Male 328 328 - 328 - Female 1,271 1,271 - 1,271 - Child 260 260 - 260 - Off-Farm Male 1,158 1,158 - 1,158 - Female 1,112 1,112 - 1,112 - Hired Labor Male 71 71 - 71 - Female - - - - - Slack Labor Male 872 872 - 872 - Female - - - - - Child 362 362 - 362 - Borrow Capital (baht) 2,603 2,550 - 2.0 2,550 - 2.0 Note: 1 % = percentage change from the base model. Excluding the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 214 to observe that despite a drop in crop yield (rice) by 20 percent below the normal level, the optimal pattern of enterprise mix with crop (rice, tobacco, corn), cottage industry (sericulture, silk weaving and sticky rice container making) and off-farm employment remains unchanged from the base model results. This result demonstrates that it is possible for the rainfed farmers to achieve the feasible solution with some family net income for saving under the assumed uncertain situation with a crop yield from 10 to 20 percent below the normal level. In other words, the rainfed farmers can survive and stay in the farm business with some net income for saving even if their main crop yield were ‘dropped by 20 percent from the normal level. This is because the sup- plemental income from cottage industry as well as from off-farm employ- ment helps the rainfed farms to carry the losses resulting from a drop in the main crop yield. In addition, under this assumed situation the rainfed farmers are able to pay back the BAAC's short-term loan. Thus the BAAC's credit policy to the rainfed farmers may not be risky even under a situation causing a drop in few farmers' crop yield by 20 per- cent from the normal level. However, this and any further conclusions drawn from this result should keep in mind the other assumption con- tained in the model. 7.2 Simulation Analysis for the Irrigated Farms 7.2.1 Situation 1: Without Off-Farm Employment Opportunities If off-farm employment opportunities are withdrawn, the irrigated farm households would have their family net income for saving reduced by 33 percent from the base model results. Even with an increase in the income from nonfarm enterprises it does not compensate for the loss 215 in income from the off-farm work (Table 7.5). This demonstrates the importance of off-farm employment to farm household income even in the intensive agriculture area. The absence of off-farm employment oppor- tunities cause irrigated farmers to spread out their wet and dry season rice into 3 periods (periods 1, 2.1, 3.1 for wet season rice and periods 9, 10.1 and 11.1 for dry season rice) instead of 2 periods while the rest of crops grown (tobacco and glutinous corn) are still the same as in the base model. Under this assumed situation, the production of all 3 cottage industries (basket making, mat making, cotton weaving) sub- stantially increase from the base model because the irrigated farmers would have to engage their family labor in the available cottage indus- try to compensate for the absence of off-farm employment opportunities. However, it was observed that despite the absence of off-farm employment opportunities both male and female employment in total do not change from the base model results as their labor can be used for cottage in- dustry during the period without off-farm employment opportunities. Children employment is utilized more fully under this assumed situation as children are able to contribute more labor to the family industries like mat making. 7.2.2 Situation II: More Off-Farm Employment Opportunities Like the rainfed farming situation, it was assumed that the irri- gated farm households have more opportunities than the base model to hire out their family labor during the dry season (i.e. two additional periods of March and April). Under this assumed situation, the irri- gated farm households are little better off because their family net income for saving slightly increases by 1.7 percent from the base model 216 Table 7.5 Results of a Change in Off-Farm Employment Opportunities for the Irrigated Farms Without Off-Farm MoreTOff-Farm 333:] Situation % Situation % Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 21,575 21,575 - 21,575 - Nonfarm 1,231 3,763 +205.7 1,018 -l7.3 Off-Farm 7,311 - * 7,776 t 6.4 Total 1 30,117 25,338 - 15.9 30,369 + 0.8 Net for Saving 14,479 9,701 - 33.0 14,731 + 1.7 'Labor Use: (hour) Farm Male 2,680 2,680 - 2,680 - Female 2,350 2,350 - 2,350 - Nonfarm Male 262 1,441 +450.0 202 -22.9 Female 551 1,453 +163.7 317 -42.5 Child 155 412 +165.8 155 - Off-Farm Male 1,179 - * 1,239 + 5.1 Female 1,068 - * 1,122 + 5.1 Hired Labor Male 460 350 - 23.9 460 — Female 69 78 + 13.0 69 - Slack Labor Male - - - - - Female 105 105 - 105 - Child 892 635 - 28.8 892 - Note: % = percentage from the basic model. 1Excluding the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 217 (Table 7.5). Increase in off-farm employment opportunities (in March and April) has no effect on the optimal cropping pattern, but it causes a drop in the production of cotton fabric and bamboo baskets since the households shift their family labor from cotton weaving and basket mak- ing activities to off-farm employment (in March and April). The pro- duction of cotton fabric decreases by 22 percent from the basic model whereas the production of basket reduces by 24 percent. Introducing more off-farm employment opportunities offering a wage of 3.75 baht per hour for females and of 4.38 baht per hour for male labor may cause the cottage industry found in the irrigated area to become less economically desirable for the irrigated farm households and thus, the production of the cottage industry would be expected to decrease substantially. 7.2.3 Situation III: Variation in Wages Wages used in the basic model for the irrigated farms were assumed to be increased by 10 and 30 percent under this situation. When wages are increased by 10 percent, it is expected that the family net income for saving will improve by 5.1 percent from the base model (Table 7.6). Part of this increased income is obtained from additional off-farm work. A wage increase of 10 percent does not change the optimal pattern of enterprise mix for the irrigated farm households. However, if wages are permitted to rise to a level of 30 percent above those assumed in the base model, it may cause the production of glutinous corn to become less profitable while the other crop enterprise of rice and tobacco would still be attractive for the irrigated farmers. The households thus switch their family labor from glutinous corn pro- duction activities to off-farm work (Table 7.6). According to a limit 218 Table-7.6 Results of Variation in Wages for the Irrigated Farms *Wage Rate Up 10% Wage Rate Up 30% Base . . . . Situation % Situation % M°d91 111 111 Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 21,575 21,575 - 21,525 - 0.2 Nonfarm 1,231 1,231 - 1,249 + 1.5 Off-Farm 7,311 8,042 9.9 9,504 +30.0 Total 1 30,117 30,848 2.4 32,278 + 7.2 Net for Saving 14,479 15,210 5.1 16,640 +14.9 Labor Use: (hour) Farm Male 2,680 2,680 - 2,661 - 0.7 Female 2,350 2,350 - 2,332 - 0.7 Nonfarm Male 262 262 - 274 + 4.6 Female 551 551 - 560 + 1.6 Child 155 155 - 159 + 3.2 Off-Farm Male 1,179 1,179 - 1,186 + 0.6 Female 1,068 1,068 — 1,109 + 3.8 Hired Labor Male 460 460 - 457 - 0.6 Female 69 69 - 109 +57.9 Slack Labor Male - - - - - Female 105 105 - 114 + 8.5 Child 892 892 - 888 - 0.4 Note: % = percentage change from the basic model. 1 Excluding the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 219 of off-farm employment opportunities as pointed out earlier, an increase in wage (even by 30%) does not change the level of the household employ- ment. 0n the basis of the above results, it may be concluded that in- creased wage (even by 30% from the base model) may effect slightly the minor crop production activities like glutinous corn, but has no impact on the cottage industry performed by the irrigated farm households. This is because the main crop production of rice and tobacco are still highly profitable for the farmers compared to the off-farm work. In addition, most of the cottage industries are less competitive to both classes of off-farm employment as discussed earlier. Thus, an increase in off-farm employment wage is expected to cause no change in the pro- duction of products from the family industry. But the irrigated farm households who have excess labor force would be expected to take advan- tage of the situation with increased wage in off-farm employment, con- sequently obtaining more income from hiring out their labor to this off-farm work. 7.2.4 Situation IV: Year Round Availability of Alternative Non- Farm Enterprises This assumed situation allows the family labor, especially females to have more opportunities to engage in some viable nonfarm enterprises like cotton weaving not only in the dry season as usual but also in the wet season. The new optimal solutions suggest that the cotton weaving should be operated in periods, 1 (May), 2.1 (first half of June), 3.1 (first half of July) and 4.1 (first half of August) for the wet season and periods, 11.1, 12.1 and 12.2 for the dry season. Under this situa- tion, the new optimal solution indicates that it is possible for the 220 irrigated farm households to increase their family net income for sav- ing by 5.7 percent from two base model (Table 7.7) if cotton weaving could be promoted year round rather in the dry season only. Up to this point, one may question why the farm households usually weave cot- ton fabric in dry season only. Part of the explanation is the problem of a limit on local market demand for cotton fabric especially in the wet season. In other words, the demand for cotton fabric is seasonal and local as pointed out earlier. There is more demand for cotton fab- ric in dry season as many households have more spare time in that period to prepare mattress, pillow cases, blankets, etc. for the next winter season. All of these are made from cotton fabric. However, if there was a demand for cotton fabric during the wet season, family labor would respond dramatically to engage in cotton weaving activities during this period as well. Introducing cotton weaving activities during this per- iod can improve female employment since cotton weaving can be operated by women alone. Women are more fully employed under this assumed situa- tion. In fact, all of their available labor is fully employed (i.e. there is no women slack labor). Under this situation, mat making acti- vities as well as the production of glutinous corn became less economi- cally desirable for the irrigated farm households and they were replaced by cotton weaving activities. In short, marketing considerations aside, this result implies that cotton weaving may be a promising cottage in- dustry for the irrigated farm households to improve their family income and women employment. 221 Table 7.7 Results of a Change in Nonfarm Enterprise and Fully Irrigated Situation More Cotton Weaving, Fully Irrigated Base Model Situation % Situation % Net Income Source: (baht) Farm 21,575 21,525 - 0.2 24,514 + 13.6 Nonfarm 1,231 2,091 +69.9 636 - 48.3 Off-Farm 7,311 7,332 + 0.3 6,228 - 14.8 Total 1 30,117 30,948 + 2.8 31,378 + 4.2 Net for Saving 14,479 15,310 + 5.7 15,740 + 8.7 'Labor Use: (hour) Farm Male 2,680 2,661 - 0.7 2,944 + 9.6 Female 2,350 2,332 - 0.7 2,696 + 14.7 Nonfarm Male 262 274 + 4.6 177 - 32.4 Female 551 674 +22.3 377 - 31.6 Child 155 - * 155 - Off-Farm Male 1,179 1,186 + 0.5 1,000 — 15.2 Female 1,068 1,068 - 886 - 17.0 Hired Labor Male 460 460 - 596 + 29.6 Female 69 69 - 268 +228.4 Slack Labor Male - - - - - Female 105 - - 115 + 9.5 Child 892 1,047 + 17.4 775 - 13.1 Note: % = percentage change from the basic model. 1Excluding the value of family consumption and initial cash on hand. 222 7.2.5 Situation V: Fully Irrigated Situation The base model for irrigated farms discussed in Chapter 6 repre- sented a partially irrigated situation which caused the farm households to leave some of their paddy land idle during the dry season. Thus, this situation assumes a fully irrigated situation that allows the farm- ers to fully utilize paddy land in the dry season. Moreover, tomatoes, a new dry season crop enterprise is proposed, with two alternative planting periods of January (period 9) and February (period 10). The budget for this enterprise is presented in Appendix Table 17. Based on the assumption, the new optimal solution is shown in Table 7.8. It indicates that the family new income for saving increases to 15,740 baht (or by 8.7 percent from the base model). Part of this increased income is generated from the new crop mix appearing in the solution. This optimal pattern of crop mix differs from the one entering in the base model. Under this assumed situation the new alternative cash crop of tomato and tractor-cultivated nonglutinous rice are included in the new optimal plan, whereas the production of glutinous corn is excluded. This situation allows the irrigated farmers to have a more intensive cropping system, but it may be necessary for the farmers to employ labor-saving technology for their commercial rice production i.e. renting two-wheel tractor. The fully irrigated situation causes the farm households to reallocate their labor by switching their family labor from the cottage industry to new intensive cropping activities as it can be seen in Table 7.6. Consequently, the production of cotton fabric and basket decreases by 79.4 and 32 percent respectively from the base model. However, to achieve this optimal intensive cropping system, the farm households have to hire more labor (both male and 223 .xNOJ ONO—N NONOONOONNOO ON.OcosaONOsu ENON-NNO~ .OONNOOOONOOOE OOO OONOOONOOOOO :. OOOEOONOEO sLON-NNON _ . OOOEON a tab NOOOOOON u OON NOO—c OOOONOONOOOz n NO: NOON: OOOONOONO n «O NNOOOONN - N NONONNOO a O Ncomoom NNO n O "Oomaom «O: u 3 "OOO: - - - - NO NO ONN - OON ONN NNN - - - - N - _ - ONOOON - - - - OO - NON - OO NON OON - - - - - NNN - £32528: ONaNN .NO< -. - - - ON ON OO - OO OO OO - - . - - - - - ONOEON - - - - OO OO OO ON OO OO OO - - - - - - - ONO: MOO. ago: ONONN .N O-Ooz OON O OO - - - - O - - - ON - - - ON - - ONOsON NOOOO - OON - OO. . - - - - - - - - ONN - NO NO - - ONO: ON-ONN: NOON: - - - - - - - - - - - . OO - ON - NN ON OONOOO NO: . NOONOOOO - - - N - - - - - - - - N - - O - - OONNOO NONOOO NOOONNN . u - o u u u. u u u n u i u u u u . OON>OO3 OOOOOO LE ONN" N.O ONO: aw .NON O0.0“ 0.0 OOOOTN . , .4 .wNOuO Ill: NOONNOéNNOzl N11 1111:: OO.ONNO.OONNOz||.|¢ . . , . N.N OO.ONNzOOu......Lw N. O. O NW... 111.... NO Nile TIIINE O. N. 3. :NONONNIIIIN :2 OO. N. NO. NONOOlev W1 NEOOOSOKOLIJ N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.ON N.ON O O N O O N.O N.O N.O N.O N.N N.N N OONNONOOON < z N O O 2 O O < O O : OONNOONNO OONOONNLN NNNON ONN: OONON.OOOOONNNN OON NON OLOOOON OONNNONNOO ONOOOOOOO EOON N.ONNNO O.N ONOON 224 females). The above results demonstrate that it is possible for the irrigated farmers to increase their family income through a more inten- sive farming system especially in the dry season if a year round supply of irrigation water could be provided. CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary objective of this study was to appraise alternative uses of family resources for farm and nonfarm enterprises and their impacts on production, employment and income of rural farm households in Khon Kaen Province. The study attempted to go beyond previous farm manage- ment studies in Thailand having focused only on organization and opera- tion of farm activities while failing to provide detail on farm house- hold nonfarm and off-farm activities and their relationship to farm ac- tivities. In addition to farming activities family industry and off- farm employment were studied for their contribution to family income and their share of total labor utilization. A farm level model was de- veloped to assess the effect of cottage industry and off-farm employment on family resource use, farm organization and household income. The re- sults of this study should contribute to a better understanding of rural farm households' employment behavior and provide some of the information currently needed by the RTG policy maker for better decision and action regarding rural employment policy. The main objectives of this study are as follows: (1) To examine the nature, extent and composition of farm, non- farm and off-farm activities and their relationships in order to: (a) Identify the kinds of and combinations of income generat- ing activities in the rural study area. 225 226 (b) Compare rainfed with irrigated farms with regard to cropping patterns, off-farm employment and the nonfarm activities. (c) Describe the seasonal profile of total hours worked each month by family members in alternative employment oppor- tunities. . (d) Assess the relative importance of different farm, non- farm enterprises and off-farm work with regard to labor absorption and income generation and to compare their relative farms of different sizes. (2) To develop analytical models to represent the irrigated and rainfed farm household situations found in Khon Kaen villages. These models, then, were used to analyze the optimum allocation of the family labor and other household resources among farm and nonfarm enterprises, and off-farm work opportunities consistent with the constraints of ini- tial farm and family resources, including family subsistence constraints. (3) To use the model developed to evaluate the effect of alterna- tive nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportunities, and wage change on enterprise combinations, employment and income earned. (4) To evaluate the possible effect of alternative farm enter- prises, especially during the dry season, on enterprise combinations, employment, resource use and income earned. (5) To propose possible policies and programs to assist in improved household income and to stimulate employment of members of farm house- hold in farm and nonfarm enterprise and off-farm work. The first step taken to fulfill the study objectives was to de- scribe in detail the household resource endmeent and their constraints. 227 On the basis of the household descriptive analysis, a poly-period linear programming model was developed for representative farm households with- in different farm size groups (small, medium and large) of the rainfed and irrigated agriculture situation in Khon Kaen in order to specify optimal resource allocation for the farm household. The model contained the usual farm enterprises e.g., glutinous and nonglutinous, tobacco and corn, consistent with the major enterprises actually found in the study area. In addition, major nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportunities were included in detail to test the complementarity and competitiveness of farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm employment. The model specified an objective function to maximize net farm house- hold income subject to land, labor, capital, subsistence needs and other constraints. The planning period for the model covered one year, beginning with the wet season and continuing for 12 months through the dry season up to the beginning of the next wet season. The results then demonstrated the optimum combination of farm, nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work to maximize annual family net income. Simulation analyses with some assumed situations varying from the initial model were performed to obtain insights into how government policies and pro- grams might be used to increase rural household income and employment through a change in some alternative nonfarm enterprises and off-farm work opportunities, including alternative crop enterprises during the dry season. 228 8.1 Summary_of the Descriptive Analysis 8.1.1 Land Use and Farm Size The land area operated by individual farm household ranged from 5 rai to 52 rai with a mean of 19.88 rai in the sample rainfed villages, and ranged from 3.0 rai to 45.8 rai with a mean of 17.26 rai in the sam- ple irrigated villages. According to the definition of farm size used in this study, for the rainfed farm households there were 10 small farms with a mean of 6.33 rai of land area, 19 medium farms with a mean of 17.77 rai, and 10 large farms with a mean of 37.46 rai. For the irri- gated farm households, there were 10 small farms with a mean of 5.39 rai, 18 medium farms with a mean of 15.45 rai and 10 large farms with a mean of 32.36 rai. The level of tenancy was very low for rainfed and irrigated farms. Most of the rental agreements were with relatives and were commonly in kind in terms of a crop-share arrangement (about 40 percent of the harvested crop). Most of the land operated by rain- fed and irrigated farmers was used for growing glutinous and nonglutinous rice. Glutinous rice which is customarily the staple food for people in the Northeast was grown for family consumption but if there is excess it will be sold on the market. It is thus necessary for the households to grow enough rice for their family consumption for it is a disgrace to have to buy rice. Nonglutinous rice is consistently produced for commercial purposes. Small areas of vegetables were also grown, some- times with supplemental water from swamps or shallow wells in the rain- fed area. The orchard of the rainfed farm households was mostly for the growing of mulberry leaves to support their family industry of 229 sericulture or silk worm rearing which is common in this area. For the irrigated farms where a double cropping of rice was normally found, some cash crop like tobacco and glutinous corn were also grown besides vege- tables, but in a very small limited area due to their local limited mar- ket. It was observed that most of sample households of the rainfed farms use water buffalo to plow their paddy land whereas on irrigated farms the land preparation was performed by either water buffalo or a small machine tiller (two-wheel tractor) in both wet and dry seasons. 8.1.2 Family Composition and Labor Force Within the rainfed farm households, the average size of household family member increased with the size of farm. The households on large farms had a larger family size (7.1 person per family) than for medium farm households (5.7 persons per family) and for small farm households (5.6 persons per family). But this relationship between the family size and the size of farm operated did not appear to hold for irrigated farm households all farm size groups were found to have about the same number of persons per family. The average number of persons per family was 5.5 for small farms, 5.2 for medium farms and 5.3 for large farm size. The size of the family labor force also varied among the farm size groups and between the rainfed and irrigated farm households. Family labor force was classified as adult male, adult female (14 to 65 years old ) and children (7 to 13 years old). For the rainfed farms, on the average, about 4 persons or 71 percent were in the labor force for the small farms, whereas the households with medium sized farm and large-sized farm had 5.7 persons or 80 percent and 5.6 persons or 79 percent of their family members in the labor force, respectively. 230 In the case of irrigated farms, the small and medium farm house- holds had about 4.9 persons or 89 percent of their family members in the labor force, which is slightly larger than the family labor force of the large farm households having 4.4 persons or 83 percent of the family members in the labor force. For every farm size class of the rainfed farm households, on the average, there were more adult males than adult females in the family labor force, but the amount of child labor varied little among the farm size classes. However, the irrigated farm households averaged more females than males in their labor force for every farm size class. No causal relationship was implied here. 8.1.3 Land-Labor Relationship For the rainfed farm households, the ratio of land to labor force increased with farm size whether computed on the basis of number in the family labor force or on the basis of adults in the family. The land- labor ratio was 3.0, 4.5 and 7.9 rai per adult for the small, medium and large farm size, respectively. This suggests that the labor may be in excess supply on small farms and in short supply on the large farms as far as meeting crop labor requirements are concerned. Indeed, the indication of excess labor on small farms and labor shortage on large farms was even more pronounced on irrigated farms where the land per adult worker is 4.2, 4.1 and 8.8 rai for the small, medium and large farm, respectively. 8.1.4 Family Income Sources and Farm Size In the case of rainfed farms, farm enterprises provided the pri- mary source of family net income for the medium and large size farm, while the most important sources of family income for small farm size 231 was off-farm work. Farm income sources accounted for 44, 42 and 27 per- cent of the total family net income for the large, medium and small farms, respectively. This demonstrated that the net farm income pro- portional to total net income was positively related to the operational size of farm. This would be explained in part by the fact that the ma- jor contributor to net farm income was rice production which was largely dependent on the amount of farmland. Thus, the household Operating the larger farm was able to earn more income from farm enterprises than those operating smaller farms. Nonfarm enterprises (or cottage indus- try) generated a significant amount of net income for every farm size class in the rainfed area. The small and medium farm size were able to earn up to 21 percent of their total net income from cottage industry whereas the large farm households earned 19 percent of their total net income on the average. Off-farm work also made a significant contribu- tion to the family net income for most of the rainfed farm households, especially the small farm size group. It provided 52 percent of the total family net income for the small farm household, while the medium and large farm households obtained 38 and 37 percent of their total family net income respectively from off-farm work. Again income ob- tained from off-farm work as well as farm income on the basis of a per— centage of gross family income, seemed to show a close relationship to the farm size, but in the opposite manner. This was as one would ex- pect because families on small tracts of land in the rainfed area, would find it difficult to utilize as much labor for farm production activities as was possible on the larger farms. As expected the average family net income per household of the ir- rigated farm households was higher than the one of the rainfed farm 232 households, since rice which was the major income earner can be grown twice a year in the irrigated area. Farm enterprise was the most im- portant source of family net earning for all farm size classes of the irrigated farm. It provides 55, 76 and 84 percent of family net income for the small, medium and large farm households. Off-farm employment also played a significant role in generating income for farm families even in the irrigated area. It provided 45, 24 and 15 percent of total family net income for the small, medium and large farm households, re- spectively. Nonfarm enterprise provides some supplementary net income to families even on the irrigated farms, but in relative terms repre- 'sented only 0.4, 0.2 and 1.4 percent of the total family net income for small, medium and large farm size, respectively. 8.1.5 Nonfarm Enterprises There were four cottage industries of silk weaving, sericulture, sticky rice container and mat making found in the sample rainfed farm households, and 3 nonfarm enterprises of cotton weaving, basket and mat making in the sample irrigated farm households. In relative terms, silk weaving, sericulture and the making of rice containers were the dominant family industries for the rainfed farm households with more than a half of the total households engaged in them. Cotton weaving appeared to dominate the other two nonfarm enterprises, mat and basket making for the irrigated farms with 50 percent of the total households performing this enterprise. 8.1.6 Off-Farm Employment Hiring out farm labor to work in the crop field (rice and upland crops) was the most common off-farm employment opportunity found in 233 both rainfed and irrigated farms, especially for the farm household which has a large labor force relative to their farmland. 0n the aver- age, for agricultural field work, wages paid to male and female labor was approximately equal, ranging from 2.8 to 3.5 baht per hour. To work as wage labor for many rainfed and irrigated farm households to the time of the major manufacturing and construction activities took place was evident. 0n the average, for these kinds of off-farm work, male labor was paid 4.36 baht per hour (or 35 baht per day) and female labor was paid 3.75 baht per hour (or 30 baht per day). 8.1.7 Distribution of Family Labor to Farm, Nonfarm and Off-Farm Activities The major findings of the family labor utilization to farm, non- farm and off-farm activities were as follows: (1) For all sample households, the important role of farm work as the percent of total family labor use increased with the size of the operational farm. In other words, there was more farm work to be ac- complished on the large farms requiring the households with large farm size to devote more of their labor in farming than the households with smaller sized farm. (2) When the matter of water availability was examined (rainfed farms vs. irrigated farms), the relative share of family labor in farm work for the irrigated farms was higher than for the rainfed farms. (3) 0n the average of all sample households, farm work was domi- nated by adult males relative to adult females and children. Even on the basis of the average hours per person, the male adult involvement in farm work still increased with farm size and was higher on irrigated farms than on rainfed farms. 234 (4) The share of nonfarm work (cottage industry) proportional to the total family labor use for the rainfed farms was larger than for the irrigated farms because the farming activities were limited for rainfed farm households and income must be supplemented by engaging more in many varieties of cottage industry. It was also revealed that women in both rainfed and irrigated farm households play the dominant role in cottage industry. (5) Children in both rainfed and irrigated areas demonstrated their certain role in cottage industry by sharing nearly 16 percent of total family labor worked in nonfarm activities. However, the role of children in nonfarm employment activities cannot be explained adequately from the data provided in this study. In the cultural setting of rural Thailand children are expected to develop basic skills and to avoid idleness whether or not their employment is regarded as profitable from a monetary standpoint. The role of women in development has received increased attention in recent years. The role of children may also be an area for more attention in research. (6) The contribution of off-farm work proportional to total fam- ily labor use decreased as farm size increased for the total sample households as well as for both rainfed and irrigated farm households. (7) About the same protion of both men and women time was allocated to off-farm work on the average of all households but varied markedly among farm types and farm sizes. As farm size increases, the share of one's time spent in off-farm work decreased for both males and females, and for both rainfed and irrigated farms. This demonstrated that farm labor needs to be first priority even when off-farm employment may exist. 235 (8) For all farms, the CV (coefficient of variation--the ratio of the standard deviation of the monthly average to the annual average of family labor use) was 0.30, 0.20, 0.24 and 0.17 for farm work, farm work plus nonfarm employment, farm work plus off-farm work, and the total labor utilization distribution, respectively. This suggested that off- farm employment contributed less to smoothing monthly labor use fluctua- tion than did the nonfarm (cottage industry type) employment. In com- parison, the CV of 0.19 for farm work on irrigated farms was less than the CV of 0.21 for employment from all sources on rainfed farms. This demonstrated one of the advantages of irrigation to open opportunities 'for a more uniform (less erratic) use of family labor than was possible on rainfed farms. 8.1.8 Household Consumption Patterns The value of food expenditure proportional to the total expendi- tures for the rainfed farm household was higher than for the irrigated farm households because the rainfed farm households had relatively lower income than the irrigated farm households and would be expected to spend a large portion of their income on basic or staple food. The value of food expenditure proportional to the total expenditures for both rain- fed and irrigated farms likewise decreased as farm size increased. Family nonfood expenditures in both relative and absolute terms were lower for the rainfed than the irrigated farm and were positively cor- related with farm size. The descriptive analysis of farm household in both rainfed and ir- rigated areas in Khon Kaen Province have helped to provide improved in- sight into how rural village farmers utilize their resources. One 236 finding of this study with regard to cottage industry or nonfarm enter- prise indicates evidently that cottage industry has been previously understated in its contribution to rural farm households in terms of income generating activity as well as their contribution to rural house- hold self-employment. Cottage industry as well as some types of off- farm employment are a part of farm household's way of life along with farming even in the areas of more intensive farming systems with better irrigation. The role of men, women and children were found to differ among the type of enterprise and among activities performed within en- terprise and also by the farming situation (i.e., rainfed or irrigated). For instance, silk weaving and sericulture found in the rainfed village are dominated by women, cotton weaving and basket making found in the irrigated village are dominated by women and men, respectively. These kind of findings may be very useful in the design of rural development policies or programs aiming to alleviate rural poverty and employment. 8.2 Summary and Implications of the LP Results 8.2.1 The Programming Result for the Rainfed Farms The major findings of this part of the study may be summarized as follows: (1) The composition of enterprise mix for rice, sericulture, silk weaving, sticky rice container making and off-farm work always appears in the optimal solutions for every farm size class. 0n the economic side, these results demonstrate the potential for rainfed farm house- holds to combine farm, family industry and off-farm employment to 237 attain maximum annual family net income under existing family resource constraints including average subsistence and living expenditure require- ments. (2) Regarding farm enterprise combinations, to attain the optimal cropping systems with full utilization of land, the rainfed farmers should produce glutinous rice up to the minimum level for family con- sumption needs and devote the rest of the land for commercial nonglu- tinous rice production splitting the planting into two periods in order to avoid or minimize a problem of a shortage in supply of labor. (3) Land was fully utilized and became one of the most limiting resources especially for the small farm households. 0n the basis of the highest shadow price of land for the small farmers compared to the medium and large farmers, the higher value of additional land for small farmers was demonstrated. (4) All available female labor for every farm size was fully em- ployed and thus became a more limiting resource than male and child la- bor. This may reveal the significant contribution of rural women work to household income generating activities, in addition to the well known role of women in various nonincome generating activities, e.g. chores and child rearing. (5) No hired workers were employed on the small farm households since their family labor was adequate to meet all farming activity re- quirements. Only a few men days of labor were hired-in on the medium farm households. The programming results also suggest that it may be necessary for the large farm household to hire in many hours of both male and female labor especially during the peak periods of rice 238 production activities in order to meet the labor demand for the optimal cropping system. (6) Mat making is always excluded from the optimal base plan for every farm size class of the rainfed farms because of its low level of income generated compared to other nonfarm enterprises under the given price and current technology. However, mat making became an economical- ly desirable activity for the rainfed farmers in a certain period as it appeared in the new optimum solution assuming no silk weaving activities. This solution points out that mat making may become a viable alternative activity for the rainfed farm households if there is no skilled family 'labor to perform silk weaving activities. (7) The results from the simulation analysis allowing two addition- al production periods for sericulture to be practiced demonstrate that it is feasible for the rainfed farm households to practice sericulture for the maximum of 6 times across the year if the mulberry production constraint is resolved. This implies that there is still room for ad- ditional cottage industries like sericulture to improve the household income in the rainfed area if production bottlenecks are removed. (8) In the optimum solutions, every farm size class of the rainfed farm households, had some members (both males and females) with off-farm work. It would be economically desirable for the rainfed family members to work off-farm on a part-time basis if employment opportunities exist. Without these off-farm employment opportunities, the rainfed farm house- hold would be worse off because their family net income would decline substantially as can be seen through the simulation analysis with no off-farm employment opportunities. This result conforms to the fact 239 that many rural farm households have been engaged in off-farm work as their supplemental source of family income during the slack periods of farming activities. (9) According to the results obtained from the simulation analy- sis with changed assumptions regarding off-farm employment opportunities, the important contribution of off-farm employment to family income and employment becomes very evident. Without both classes of the assumed off-farm employment opportunities, the rainfed farm household income and employment (especially men) would be much lower. Conversely, with the assumption of more off-farm employment opportunities, the rainfed farm households would be better off as their family net income and the employment of their male labor would increase substantially. These re- sults also suggested that rainfed family labor enthusiastically respond to off-farm work offering a wage ranging from 24 to 35 baht per day (or more). (10) The effect of an increase in wage rates as a means to improve household income for rainfed farm households was examined. The program- ming solutions with assumed wage rate increase by 10 and 30 percent above the base model, demonstrated a substantial increase in household income. But increasing off-farm employment wages may cause a substan- tial short-run drop in the production of cottage industry especially sericulture because the households will switch their family labor from cottage industry to off-farm employment work. (11) Without silk weaving activities, the rainfed farm households appear to be worse off, as their family net income falls below levels obtained in the base model. In addition, female unemployment which never occurred in the base model before became apparent in the situation 240 of no silk weaving activities. More operating capital was also borrow- ed from the BAAC for rice production. (12) Despite a drop of 20 percent in the average crop yield of rice from the normal level reported by the rainfed farmers, the programming solutions demonstrate that the rainfed farms would still be able to ob- tain enough family net income for saving (through the same optimal pat- tern of enterprise mix as found in the base model) to pay back all short- term loans to BAAC. This result may be against the conservative view of commercial bankers who usually claim that to give loans to rainfed farms is very risky. Their position may be based more on the variabil- ity of income on rainfed farms than on the income level. 8.2.2 The Programming Results for the Irrigated Farms Highlights of the programming results and implications for the ir- rigated farms in relation to existing conditions and constraints are as follows: (1) The enterprise combination of glutinous rice, nonglutinous rice, tobacco, cotton weaving, basket and mat making, and part-time off-farm work always enter the optimal solutions for every farm size class. These results demonstrate the possibility for the irrigated farmers to combine farm, and nonfarm enterprises, including off-farm work to achieve maximum net family income under existing family resource constraints with subsistence and living expenditure requirements. The composition of enterprise mix suggested by the programming models are not far away from the one that the sample farm households usually do for income earning by engaging their family labor to farm (e.g., 241 glutinous and nonglutinous rice and tobacco), nonfarm enterprises (mat making, cotton weaving and baskeizmaking) and off-farm work. (2) All three common crops of glutinous rice, nonglutinous rice and tobacco are included in the optimal cropping pattern for every farm size class. However, in addition to these common crops, glutinous corn appears only in the optimal cropping system for the medium sized farm. Unlike the small and medium sized farms, the programming solutions sug- gest that it may be necessary for the large sized farm households to employ labor-saving technology, e.g., two-wheel tractor for commercial rice production. (3) The programming solutions show the results that no capital was borrowed for the irrigated farmers with every farm size class. Under the given assumption of the models, the capital of the farm household is not a limiting resource, thus the marginal value product (MVP) of bor- rowed capital was equal to zero. This may suggest that the irrigated farm households could be self-financed as they have enough capital (cash) for spending on operating expenditures of rice production, plus the family consumption expenses. (4) All wet season land was fully utilized for every farm size class. All available land was also fully utilized by small farmers in the dry season. However, for both medium and large farms, the available land was only partially used in the dry season because of inadequate ir- rigation water supply. Land was a more limiting resource for the small farmers as reflected by its highest MVP of land compared to the medium and large sized farms. Each additional unit of land at the margin al- locates more value to the small farmers than would be the case for the larger size farms. 242 (5) Unlike the solutions for rainfed farming situation, male labor was exhausted, whereas some small amount of female and a large amount of child labor was unused in the optimal solutions for the irrigated farmers with every farm size. Because irrigation permits more cropping activities and since cropping activities utilize male labor, irrigated farms will utilize male labor more fully than is to be found on rainfed farms. Furthermore, only one family industry of basket making found in the ir- rigated villages can be performed by men alone. For females, their op- portunities to engage in cottage industry of cotton weaving was assumed limited only in the dry season and also limited by the shortage of child labor in some periods for making mats, as pointed out earlier. (6) The programming results suggest that it is necessary for both medium and large farm households to hire in both male and female workers for commercial rice production activities during the peak periods. While no hire-in labor is recommended in the optimal cropping pattern for the small farmers. (7) Off-farm work by male and female family labor always enter the optimal solutions for every size class in many periods. These re- sults point out that even under the well established crop intensifica- tion in the irrigated area, there is still room for family labor to en- gage in off-farm work. On the other hand, it is possible for male and female family labor to work off-farm on a part-time basis. (8) It is economically possible to increase farm household income earned as well as family employment through intensification of cropping system with better irrigation system in the dry season as can be clearly seen in the new optimal solution of the simulated situation assuming 243 full irrigation water supply in the dry season plus the new alternative crop of tomato. (9) For the irrigated farm households, the possibility for improve- ment of household income and the employment of family labor especially for women through the expansion of a viable family industry like cotton weaving was very evident as can be seen through the simulation analysis of an assumed situation with year around cotton weaving activities. (10) Without assumed off-farm employment opportunities, even the irrigated farm households would be worse off as their family income and the women employment substantially dropped. Inversely, both family income and employment for women are increased with more assumed off-farm employment opportunities. 8.3 Areas for Further Research Suggested areas for further research are based on the shortcomings and perceived weakness of the study and on the potential for extending the study in the future for improved rural development policy in Thailand. The shortcomings are addressed by consideration of three major concerns: (1) the data for enterprise analysis; (2) the scope of the study; and (3) methodological issues. Even though the Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project was carefully designed to meet its objectives and despite the abundance of high quality data regarding rural employment phenomenon, it did not supply the input-output coefficients by enterprise customarily re- quired in linear programming analysis. The labor inputs activities by technology employed for each enterprise are very essential. Failure 244 to provide them was not an oversight in the project design. To have done so would have added substantially to the cost and complexity of the data gathering and analysis procedures. No research undertaken can be all things to all interested groups. Consequently, the researcher attempted to fill this gap with a one-time interview-based survey of a limited sample. Refinement over time of the input-output coefficients for enterprises especially the nonfarm enterprises, will surely improve the value of the results whether they confirm or revise the findings of this research. With regard to the scope of the research one may conclude that the findings may have limited applicability for broad development policy. The "representative" households are based on a limited number of villages and those villages were not selected by randomizing procedures. To make the scope manageable, villages in upland farming areas were excluded re- cognizing that some nonfarm enterprises (such as mat making) are more prevalent there than in the rainfed and irrigated farm households in this stUdy Consequently, the representative farms of this study may be representative of only a limited domain in Khon Kaen Province. This study was more concerned with examining differences in employment be- havior as effected by the availability of irrigation water and by the size of the farm than it was in designing the analysis to produce re- sults necessarily representative of a large geographic area. It is hoped, however, that the results obtained can be used to understand more clearly farming situations.in Northeast Thailand that may be simi- lar to those encountered in this study.. The scope of the study was also somewhat delimiting with regard to the number of potentially viable alternative enterprises for the 245 farm, nonfarm and off-farm employment aspects of the villages under study. Only the most common farm crops and nonfarm enterprises were considered, livestock relationships to the cropping system and to fam- ily consumption behavior were overly simplified by treating them as "given," and the wide range of off-farm employment opportunities that are seemingly available in the area were restricted to only hired wages in agricultural work and a selected additional category of off-farm em- ployment. How much was lost by these simplification procedures is not known. It is a matter worthy of further exploration. There is need for adaptive research to identify additional potential crops for both rainfed and irrigated farms in the rainy season and for irrigated farms in the dry season. More information is needed on the economics of individual nonfarm enterprises to learn the determinations of success or failure and to be able diagnosis the potential for im- provements in the production (including technology) and in marketing practise. The potential for new product development in the area is another area needing further study. Furthermore, this study has sug- gested the need for more information on the local labor market especial- ly the interactions between nonfarm firms/households and the farming sector. Without these further studies, the present findings must be taken as preliminary. Further research possibilities come to mind on the methodological side. For example, what are implications of modelling the representa- tive household by preparing a composite average of all selected farms? The average will reveal a greater variety of enterprises than would be expected on the typical farm. The mathematics of linear programming 246 may exclude an enterprise may be prevalent in the village under study. This does not necessarily mean that the households engaged in the enter- prise are behaving irrationally. It is more likely that the averages used to specify input-output coefficients and resource constraints are very unlike those to be found on the farm where in the enterprise is practiced. It is possible that the linear programming approach will generate improved results if more behavioral features explaining "why farmers do what they do" can be incorporated in the analysis rather than averaging all households or even modelling selected case households with consideration of only the customary constraints of land, labor and con- sumption requirements. More research is needed in this area. The underlying assumptions and the usual static nature of linear programming provides a basis for common criticism of the method. Never- theless, with care in model specification, reliable data and good judge- ment in the selection of propositions to be evaluated, it is a very powerable tool for analyzing firm-household relationships. There is the opportunity to further exploit the methodology in Thailand in the problem area of this study. For example, in addition to the suggestions offered above for improving the results from'a household perspective, there may be merit in redefining the problem as a village or community phenomenon. In this way, basic intra-community labor utilization issues would be addressed and the focus on "why villages do what they do" should prove both useful and interesting. In summary, this study is just one additional step on the path of research on rural employment in Northeast Thailand. It is a companion to the other studies already undertaken and also contemplated as part 247 of a common project. Despite its shortcomings, it is offered as a mo- dest contribution in the form of tentative conclusions and some possible avenues for further research to an area of considerable concern to the Royal Thai Government. APPENDIX 248 Appendix Table 1 Enterprise Budget of Glutinous Rice of Rainfed Farm Household, Khon Kaen Province Enterprise: Glutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: San P? Tong (Long Maturing Season: Wet Season ' Rice Power Use: Draft Animal Output: 25 tang (250 kg) Price: BZG/tang Gross Value: $650.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (B) Seed 6.70 kg 82.50/kg 16.7 Fertilizer 5.56 kg 84.50/kg 25.02 Pesticide & Herbicide 4.96 Transportation 22.84 Power Hired 134.00 Total 3203.57 Gross Margin: 8445.43 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 1 N 2.96 -- -- g 2.1 LP 26.01 -— ~- 2.2 PT 1.04 15.18 -- 3 CC 3.20 -- -- 4 CC 4.08 -- -- 5 CC 3.20 -- -- 6 CC 3.20 -- -- 7 HT&HL 19.00 16.38 -- 8 TSH 6.31 3.66 -- Total 69.01 35.22 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TSH Threshing 249 Appendix Table 2 Enterprise Budget of Nonglutinous Rice of Rainfed Farm Household, Khon Kaen Province Enterprise: Nonglutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Mae Lgop (Long Maturing Season: Wet Season Rice Power Use: Draft Animal Output: 25 tang (250 kg) Price B32/tang Gross Value: $800.00 Operating Cost Seed 6.51 kg 83.00/kg 19.53 Fertilizer 5.45 kg 84.50/kg 24.52 Pesticide & Herbicide 4.95 Transportation 22.84 Power Hired 134.00 Total $205.84 Gross Margin: 8594.16 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 1 N 2.98 -- ~- 2.1 LP 26.01 -- -- 2.2 PT 1.06 14.56 -- 3 CC 3.20 -- -- 4 CC 4.05 -- -- 5 CC 3.20 -- -- 6 HT&HL 23.72 16.17 -- 7 TSH 5.51 4.0 -- Total 69.73 34.73 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TSH = Threshing 250 Appendix Table 3 Enterprise Budget of Sericulture of Rainfed Farm Household, Khon Kaen Province Enterprise: Sericulture Variety: Native Variety Product: Silk Yarn Operating Cost Qty. Eggs 5 beds Mulberry Leaves 107 kg Total Gross Margin: Labor Input: Period Task Male ' (hrs. 1 Feeding -- 2 Processing -- Total -- Unit of Production: 1200 grams Price: 850/100 grams Gross Value: 8600 Price Value (B) B4/bed 20.0 B1.0/kg 107.0 127.0 473.0 Female Child 1 (hrs.) (hrs.) 87.12 77.52 64.20 -- 151.32 77.52 Note: Q periods. The production process of Sericulture can be complete within two The first period includes feeding and other activities involved in silk worm raising while successive period includes silk thread processing such as boiling cocoon, reeling, and spinning. 251 Appendix Table 4 Enterprise Budget of Silk Weaving of Rainfed Farm Household, Khon Kaen Province Enterprise: Silk Weaving Product: Patterned Fabric (1.05 x 1m) Operating Cost Silk Yarn Dye Plastic Thread Transportation Total Gross Margin: Labor Input: Period Task Year Round Whole* Unit of Production: 1 piece Price: B350/piece Gross Value: 8350 Value (B) 190.67 20.08 2.57 3.71 217.03 132.97 Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 44.44 *Whole = deguming + spinning + reeling + wrapping +-cbeing + unwrapping .. + bobbin + winding + setting up loom and weaving. 252 Appendix Table 5 Enterprise Budget of Sticky Rice Container Making of the Rainfed Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Stick Rice Container Unit of Production: 28 containers Making Product: Sticky Rice Container Price: B10 per container Gross Value: B280.0 Operating Cost Value (B) Bamboo 20.16 Plastic String 2.24 Ruttan 12.32 Toddy Palm (fiber from palm frond) 10.00 Wood 7.22 Nail 9.81 Transportation 3.92 Total B65.66 Gross Margin: B214.34 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) Year Round Whole* 63.2 71.6 14.1 *Whole = bamboo processing (cutting, splitting, smoothing) + weaving + assembling. 253 Appendix Table 6 Enterprise Budget of Mat Making of Rainfed and Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Mat Making Unit of Production: 60 mats Product: Reed Mat (1.5 x 2 meters) Price: B7.00 per mat Gross Value: B420 Operating Cost Value (B) Reed 63.6 Plastic String 83.4 Dye 13.8 Transportation Cost 12.6 Total B173.4 Gross Margin: B246.6 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) Year Round Whole* - 194.64 102.38 *Whole = cutting + slicing + drying + dyeing + weaving. This is the labor requirement after reeds have been acquired. 254 Appendix Table 7 Enterprise Budget of Glutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Glutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Pan Pa Tong (Long Maturing Season: Wet Season Rice Power Use: Draft Animal Output: 39 tang (390 kg) Price: B26 per tang Gross Value: Bl,014.0 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (B) Seed 6.2 kg B2.6 15.91 Fertilizer 2.19 kg B4.07 8.94 Pesticide & Herbicide 8.21 Transportation 26.54 Power Hired 185.00 Total B244.60 Gross Margin: B769.40 Labor Cost: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 1 N 3.6 -- ~- 2.1 LP 31.29 2.11 -- 2.2 PT 12.39 20.17 -- 3 CC 3.93 -- -- 4 CC 2.72 -- ~- 5 CC 2.72 -- -- 6 CC 2.72 -- -- 7 HT&HL 19.77 21.80 -- 8 TH 5.56 5.47 -- Total 84.70 49.55 Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation P1 = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing 255 Appendix Table 8 Enterprise Budget of Glutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Glutnious Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: San Pa Tong (Long Maturing Season: Wet Season Rice Power Use: Machine Tiller Output: 39 tang (390 kg) Price: B26 per tang Gross Value: Bl,014.00 Operating Cost Seed Pesticide & Herbicide Power Hired Total Gross Margin: Qty. Price Value (B) 6.29 kg 82.6/kg 16.35 7.33 26.54 355.00 3413.43 3600.57 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 1 N 3.62 -- -- 2.1 LP 14.07 -- -- 2.2 PT 1.39 20.17 -- 3 CC 4.64 -- -- 4 CC 2.72 -- -- 5 CC 2.72 -- -- 6 CC 2.72 -- -- 7 HT&HL 21.01 21.52 -- 8 TH 5.57 5.56 -- Total 58.46 47.25 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing 256 Appendix Table 9 Enterprise Budget of Nonglutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Nonglutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Mae Loop (Long Maturing Season: Wet Season Rice Power: Draft Animal Output: 40 tang (400 kg) Price: B30 per tang Gross Value: Bl,200.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (B) Seed 4.57 kg B3.00/kg 13.71 Fertilizer 2.67 kg B4.07 10.86 Pesticide & Herbicide 8.44 Transportation 26.79 Power Hired 185.00 Total 8244.80 Gross Margin: B955.20 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 1 N 3.67 -- —- 2.1 LP 32.00 2.01 -- 2.2 PT 11.20 20.18 -- 3 CC 4.10 -- -- 4 CC 3.07 -- -- 5 CC 3.07 -- -- 6 CC 3.07 -- -- 7 CC 3.07 -— -- 8 HT&HL 26.85 26.17 —- &TH Total 90.10 48.36 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation P1 = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing 257 Appendix Table 10 Enterprise Budget of Tobacco of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Tobacco Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Local Season: Wet Season Power: Draft Animal Output: 75 kg Price: B60.55/kg Gross Value: B4,54l.25 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (B) Seed 87.63 Fertilizer 217.57 Pesticide & Herbicide 128.29 Power Hired 100.00 Total B 533.49 Gross Margin: B4,007.76 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 5 N 11.04 3.12 -- 6 LP&PT 15.57 9.19 -- 7 CC 57.29 64.54 -- 8 CC 39.65 48.95 -- 9 HTBPC 67.89 55.31 -- Total 191.44 181.11 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting PC = Processing 258 Appendix Table 11 Enterprise Budget of Nonglutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Nonglutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Mae Loop (Long Maturing Season: Wet Season Rice Power Use: Machine Tiller Output: 40 tang (400 kg) Price: B30 per tang Gross Value: Bl,200.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (B) Seed 4.60 kg B3.00/kg 13.80 Fertilizer 2.62 kg B4.07/kg 10.74 Pesticide & Herbicide 6.77 Transportation 26.79 Total B413.10 Gross Margin: 8786.90 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs ) (hrs.) 1 N 3.6 -- -- 2.1 LP 14.07 -- -- 2.2 PT 1.73 20.18 -- 3 CC 4.07 -- -- 4 CC 3.07 -- -- 5 CC 3.07 -- -- 6 CC 3.07 -- -- 7 CC 3.07 -- -- 8 HT&HL 26.86 26.18 -- ‘ Total 62.61 46.36 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing 259 Appendix Table 12 Enterprise Budget of Nonglutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Nonglutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: RD 7 (Short Maturing Rice) Season: Dry Season Power Use: Draft Animal Output: 34 tang (340 kg) Price: B30 per tang Gross Value: Bl,020.00 Operating Cost Qty. PriCe Value (B) Seed 4.95 kg B3.00/kg 14.85 Fertilizer 21.33 kg B5.00/kg 106.65 Pesticide & Herbicide 23.37 Transportation 26.86 Power Hired 185.00 Total B355.73 Gross Margin: B664.27 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 9 N 3.50 -- -- 10.1 LP 31.68 3.64 -- 10.2 PT 12.39 20.18 -- 11 CC 15.50 -- ~- 12 HT&HL 22.99 23.93 -- &TH Total 86.06 47.75 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing 260 Appendix Table 13 Enterprise Budget of Glutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Glutnious Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: RD (Short Maturing Rice) Season: Dry Season Power Use: Machine Tiller Output: 34 tang (340 kg) Price: 826 per tang Gross Value: $884.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (8) Seed 5.36 kg 52.60 13.93 Fertilizer 21.37 kg 55.00 106.85 Pesticide & Herbicide 23.41 Transportation 25.86 Power Hired 355.00 Total $525.05 Gross Margin: $358.95 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 9 N 3.52 -- -- 10.1 LP 14.04 -- -- 10.2 PT 1.39 20.17 -- 11 CC 13.19 -- -- 12 HT&HL 17.33 17.12 -- 1 TH 5.10 5.27 -- Total 56.60 42.56 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing Appendix Table 14 261 Enterprise Budget of Glutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Threshing Enterprise: Glutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: RD (Short Maturing Rice) Season: Dry Season Power Use: Draft Animal Output: 34 tang (340 kg) Price: 826 per tang Gross Value: 8884.00 Operating Cost Qty. Value (8) Seed ' 5.36 kg 82.6/kg 13.93 Fertilizer 21.37 kg 85.0/kg 106.85 Pesticide & Herbicide 23.41 Transportation 25.86 Power Hired 185.00 8355.05 «Gross Margin: 8528.95 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 9 3.52 -- -- 10.1 LP 32.03 3.04 -- 10.2 PT 12.39 20.17 -- 11 CC 15.19 -- -- 12 HT&HL 17.33 17.12 -- 1 TH 5.10 5.27 -- Total 85.56 45.60 -- Note: = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling 262 Appendix Table 15 Enterprise Budget of Nonglutinous Rice of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Nonglutinous Rice Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: RD 7 (Short Maturing Rice) Season: Dry Season Power Use: Machinery Tiller Output: 34 tang (340 kg) Price: 830 per tang Gross Value: 81,020.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (8) Seed 4.95 kg 83.00/kg 14.85 Fertilizer 21.33 kg 85.00/kg 106.65 Pesticide & Herbicide 23.37 Transportation 25.86 Power Hired 355.00 Total 8525.73 Gross Margin: 8494.27 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 9 N 3.5 -— -- 10.1 LP 14.07 -- -- 10.2 PT 1.73 20.18 -- 11 CC 15.50 -- -— 12 HT&HL 22.99 23.93 -- &TH Total 57.79 44.11 -- Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting HL = Hauling TH = Threshing 263 Appendix Table 16 Enterprise Budget of Glutinous Corn of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Glutinous Corn Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Local Season: Dry Season Power Use: Draft Animal Output: 923 ears Price: 80.50/ear Gross Value: 8461.50 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (8) Seed 2.26 kt 820.0/kg 45.20 Fertilizer 52.00 Pesticide & Herbicide 13.50 Power Hired 100.00 Total 8210.70 Gross Margin: 8250.80 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 11 LP&PT 53.90 45.50 -- 12 CC 39.17 19.64 -- 1 HT 6.67 25.06 -- Total 99.74 90.20 -- Note: LP = Land Preparation PT = Planting CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting 264 Appendix Table 17 Enterprise Budget of Tomato of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Tomato Unit of Production: 1 rai Variety: Roma (VF 134) Season: Dry Season Power Use: - Output: 2,528 kg Price: 81.25 per kg Gross Value: 83,160.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (8) Seed 100.00 Fertilizer 217.42 Pesticide & Herbicide 84.22 Transportation -- Power Hired -- Total 8 471.65 .Gross Margin: 82,688.36 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child , (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 8 N&LP& 31.04 35.6 18.12 F&I 9 PT&F&I 68.01 109.09 32.79 &CC 10 F&CC&I 60.22 97.74 30.38 11 CC&I&HT 112.76 210.85 29.63 12 I&HT 32.11 63.46 7.64 Total 304.14 516.74 118.56 Note: N = Nursery LP = Land Preparation F = Fertilizing PT = Planting I = Irrigation CC = Crop Care HT = Harvesting Source: "Input Suppliers for the Modern Fruit and Vegetable Processors," A Case Study, Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project, Bangkok, Thailand. 265 Appendix Table 18 Enterprise Budget of Cotton Weaving of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Cotton Weaving Unit of Production: 16 pieces Product: Cotton Fabric (1.0 x 1.5 Price: 857.61 per piece meters) Gross Value: 8921.76 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (8) Cotton Yarn 324.32 Dye 22.88 Total 8347.20 Gross Margin: 8574.56 Labor Input: Period Task Male - Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) 9,10.1,lO.2 11.1.12.1,12.2 Whole* -- 195.4 -- *whole = warp preparation + reeling cotton yarn + degumming and dyeing + patterning + weaving. 266 Appendix Table 19 Enterprise Budget of Basket Making of the Irrigated Farm Households in Khon Kaen Enterprise: Basket Making Unit of Production: 2 baskets Product: Bamboo Basket Price: 822.50 per basket Gross Value: 845.00 Operating Cost Qty. Price Value (8) Bamboo 19.0 Ruttan 4.0 Total 823.00 Gross Margin 822.00 Labor Input: Period Task Male Female Child (hrs.) (hrs.) (hrs.) Year Round Whole* 55.5 -- -- *whole = cutting + splitting + smoothing + weaving. 267 Auumu< Easvxmz .o mmwuw>_uu< Ne mu um ¢__ em mop mop mm mm N_ m oo_ pmgzupzowcm< gocwz .u op up mp NF op .. .. pm op -- .. mp mgmspo meoom ON mm mm mu om m w me «m m m m“ new mzowm2_mm om om om ow om NP NF om om up up om xcoz ovummsoo "mmwuw>Puo< m:_umgm=mu oo_ mm «m mop ow om om mop om om om «FF mEoocwcoz .m Am¢_=c< ~._V mow mma Pmm mme «we woe mme woe mme mme woe Nwe mesa: Page» .< La< gm: awn cow own >oz poo mom ma< Paw cad an: EmuH uowzma new 58cc: upogmmzo: cm; mesa: Nays: 0 mega; vmmcmmm ppmsm ms» mo mmwpw>vpo< mzwamgocmo mEoucH Lou mm—mz uP=o< mo mesa: m—nmpwm>< ssswxmz mo co_umu:asou om m_aah xwucmaa< 268 Auumu< szsvxmz .o mmPuw>wpu< om mm me me my mm om om we 0 N— me Facappzuwgm< socwz .u -- i- u- a- -- n -- u- n- u- n- .. mgmguo _mwuom m w m m m m m m m -- m m use maowawpam me me me me me me mm me mu mm mm me xcoz owpmoEoo ”mmwuw>_uu< acmumgmcmo we mm em em cm on em om om mm mm mm msoucwcoz .m Amppsuq N.PV mmm mmm wow mmm mmm mmm mmm mam mmm mmm mmm mmm mesa: punch .< La< cm: no; and owe >oz was now mz< paw can an: EmpH cowema can 58:0: u_o;mm:o: cm; mcaoz "awe: mesa; ummcwmm Fpmsm mzp mo moppw>mpu< mcwumcmcmc wsoucfi so» mmpmsmu uF=u< mo mesa: mpam~wm>< Eaewxmz on» mo covumuaasou Pm m_nm» xwecmaa< 269 Aonmu< Eaewxwz .o mowpw>wuu< cm mm m mm on an oe ee _m oe ¢m em Fmgsapzuwgm< scams .9 u- u- u- u- n- u- n- n- n- u- u- .. mgmzuo pmwoom .. -- u- u- u- u- -u -- u- u- u- u- can maowmrpwa oo oo om oo oo on oo co co om on on xcoz owpmmsoo ”mmwuw>wuu< mcwpmcmcmo co co oo oo oo oo on co oo oo oo om mEoocwcoz .m 222...: T: vow «mp “op amp emu cup omp ox. «mm amp cup omp mcaoz quok .< ga< Luz no; new owe >oz poo awm m=< Paw cao an: EwuH cowcma can spec: upocmmaoz cm; mesa: Hume: magma emccvam Ppmsm any co macuw>_uu< mewuaemcmw meoucH cow cmccpwgu mo mesa: m_nm_wm>< Easwxwz mo cowuopzqsoo NN m_nae xwucmaa< 270 Auumu< Eaewxmz .o mowaw>pwo< om N“ em mpp mm mm mmp mm “a mp um mu me=HP=owgm< gocwz .u we om em m_ up mp mp ow cc m mm mm mcmspo meuom cop wmp mmp Ne_ mmp Pm om may map mm mm_ mep wen msowmwpmm mm mm mm mm om om om mm on on mm mm xeo: uwummsoo "mmwpw>muu< m:_umgmcmo mom mNN mm_ mm_ Pup m—F mmp omN mum mmp Pop mmm meoocwcoz .m Amppae< o~.NV mum com mom com com Nem com Nam com com New com mesa: peach .< sg< an: no; can own >oz poo gum m=< Paw csw an: EmpH ecceaa new spec: upozmmao: so; mesa: u_== magma ummcwmm Ezwumz mcp we mmwum>muu< mcwumsocmw msoucH Low mmpmz upsu< mo mesa: mpnmpwm>< Ezspxmz ogu mo corpmuzasou mm m_nab xcuemaa< 271 Acumn< E=E_xmz .o moppw>mpu< mm mm we em on om me we um mm mm we pagappauwgm< gocwz .0 mm mp w «m m m m o_ om m s- w_ mgmnuo pmwoom OK as m_ cc om mm mm mm mm mm mm No use mzowmwpmm mm mu mm mm ox ON on mu mu on om mm xcoz ovummsoa "mmwup>wpo< mcwumgmcmw omp pep mop mep mm ppp epp mp. mop OFF mop mvp msoocpcoz .m Amupzc< m~.Pv mpe owe mmm owe awe mpe awe mpc awe mm¢ mpv mma mgaoz Pmuoh .< ga< Luz awn new own >oz poo mom ma< Paw csw xmz swuH eccema new spec: uposmmso: gm; mesa: awe: magma umccwam asked: as» co mawpwswpu< mcwpmcmcmo msouca com mmpmsmu upsu< we mesa: anmpwm>< ssswxmz mcu mo cowpmpsaeou 4N m.aac xpucaaa< 272 Au-mu< Essexm: .a mmwuw>wpu< m ON op mm m .N em RN om em em my _~e=ppsuwza< Loews .u -- -- u- -- -u -- -- -u -- n- u- .. mgmcuo meuom -- -- u- -- -- -- -- -- u- u- -- u- use mzowmvam m: m: m: 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 m: 3 3783 05358 ummwpm>wpu< mcwpmsmcmu 2 2 E S m: m: 2 2 S 2 E m: 658552 .m Acmcupwgu m.ov o~_ mm ox mm mop om mm ow mop mm ow mm mesa: Payee .< cue go: no; new owe >oz poo amm m=< Fae saw an: swam vowgma new gaze: upocmmao: com mesa: News: mace; ummcpmm Ezwumz on“ we mumpe>wuu< mcpumgmcmw meoocm cow cmgupwgu mo mesa: m_nmpmm>< Eaewxmz esp mo cowumuzneoo mm «.3me x_e=maa< 273 Aonmn< Easwxmz .o wwwpm>epu< oe me ee mo em me we mm om .. ep Fe Facaupaoegm< Lose: .u on mm me we em -- w mm pm -- -- Po mgwgpo pmwoom mop mop opp sup mm_ mm me mm? mp, op w amp ucm mzopmwpwm om om om om cm on om om om .. op om xgoz oppmmeoo ”mowpw>euo< mcwumcocmw mam N_m amp mum mom mm _m amp com oF mp mew msoocwcoz .m Amp_=e< m.~v Nmm cum mpm onm cum Nmm cum Nmm ohm cum «mm onm mesa: _muoh .< cue Luz own new own >oz poo new ms< Fae cue an: EmgH eoweaa eee 53:02 upogwmaoz Lon mesa: “2:: mega; ummcwmm mmgmg as» mo mmwue>wuu< uzwuwgmcmo «soucH com mmpmz peace mo mesa: mpnmpwm>< Eaewxmz msp mo cowumuznsou mm m_nmh xveemaae 274 Au-m-< Ezswxmz .a mmwpw>wuo< mm we mm mm we mm me mm ee mm me mm wmwappzowwm< Locwz .u em oe op em om mp m. cm em mp ow mm mwmcuo meuom Few New mop mew «mp omw Pup omF «op amp wmp mop use mzowmwpmm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm xwoz uwummsoo "wwwuw>wpu< mcwumwmcmo omm wmm wow wmm NNN mmm mmm mmm _wN NNN mmm mmm meoucwcoz .m Amp—see e.~v mum mmm mmm mmm mmm cum mam owm mmm mmm mmm mmm mesa: pmpow .< wg< we: no; cue umo >oz poo gum az< Fae see an: EmpH eowema eee 55:02 uposmmzo: com mesa: "awe: waged nmwcwmm mowed use we mmwuw>wuu< mcwpmwmcmc «Eoucm Low mmpmemw pwzu< wo mesa: mpnmpwm>< Ezswxmz mg» wo cowumuzasou RN a_new xweemaae 275 Ao-m-< Ezewxmz .o mowuw>wpo< om we —m we ee mm om em om om ee em pmgzu_=owso< wocwz .o -- -- -- i- i- s- u- u- -u -- u- .. mgmzpo pmwoom .. u- n- u- i- -- u- -- u- u- -u u- use maowowpmm om om om om om om om om om om om om xgoz owpmoeoo "mmwow>woo< ocwumgocoo om om om om om om om om om om om om osoocwcoz .o Acmcepweo m.oo o_m wow wow mew eop ee— oep ee_ eo— mew ee. oep mono: Fmoow .< Lo< go: no; coo ooo >oz poo oom o=< Poo coo an: emuo oowgoo one coco: cFogomzoz Loo mono: ”owe: magma oowcwom oowoo esp wo mowow>wuo< ocwpmwocmo mEoocH cow cowopwgo wo mesa: o_ompwo>< Easwxm: on» we cowpmpoosoo ow m_nmw xwecoaae 276 co - m - e u go ownm_ww>< NNN Now owm oww epm mom N—m mom omm mem omm owm mcao: Ecswxmz .o ow wow mo Fm opp Fo o~_ mm, wo mm no no mowuw>wpo< .co< cocwz .o ee eF em om NF ep o ow ew ep NP om Locoo No om No oo no oo um om em oo oo oo Fowoom a mcowowwom mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ow mm mm mm mm xcoz owpmosoo omp mow eop mow um um om mo pm no mo om_ Accocv "mmwuw>woo< ocwuccocmo man 87:02 .o Ao_=ee o.mo owe ooe wee ooe ooe ooe ooe ooe owe ooe owe ooe mczo: Fmpow .< NF pp ow o o w o m e m N F co< co: co; coo ooo >oz poo com o=< Foo coo >oz oowcoc ocm coco: capo Econ topmowccm Fmem wo mowuw>wuo< ocwumcmcoo osooco comm: cow mmwmz opoo< >5 «Paupwm>< mcoo: Easwxcz wo cowumuoosoo mm m_n~w xwecoccc VI 01. Au u m a < u ov mpaoewo>< ONN NON ONN NON NNN NON OON OON OOO OOO OON NON ONOOO cOchmc .O NON .NN OON NNN NON NNN OON OON OO ONN OFN OON OONON>OOOO .OOO NOsz .O eN NN ON em O O NO ON ON ON em em NOOOO NNN ON PO NN OO Oe OO eO NN OO ON NO NOOOOO + OOONOONON OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO xeoc OOOOOOOO NNN NON OON OON NON OON _ON OON ONN NON OON NNN NNOOOV “OOOOO>OOOO ocwumcmcmo osoocoucoz .m NONOOO O.NO NOO ONO ONO ONO ONO NOO ONO NOO ONO ONO NOO ONO ONOO: NOOON .O NO NN ON O O N O O O O N N co< LO: coo coo omo >oz poo omm oo< Foo coo >oz OOOOOO OOO OOcoc cOOO Econ ooumowwco chsm wo Omwuw>woo< ocwomcmcoo osoocH Loom: cow Omwcsmu upoo< On owcmpwm>< Ocoo: soswxoz wo cowucoooeoo ON ONOON xNOOOOOe 278 NO - O - e - OO owoopwo>< op? Ne om ee om om ee we ow em oN om Ocoo: coswxoz .o o Ne mm Nm oN ee Nm mm oN oe N oN Oowuw>woo< .coe cocwz .o -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- cmcuo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- —owoom + moowowpom NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN xcoz owomosoo NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN Acoocv "mowpw>wpo< ocwuococoo osoocH-coz .o Acocowwco o.ov eep oop Po om NNN oo oo oo NNN No oo oo Ocoo: Pouch .< NF 2 op o o N o m e m N _ co< go: no; coo ooo >oz poo omm oo< Foo coo xoz oowcoo oco coco: EouH Econ oouoowcco Fposm wo Oowow>woo< ocwoococoo msooco coho: cow coooo opwco an opoowwo>< mcoo: Eoswxoz wo cowpouoosoo NO ONOON xOOOOOOO 279 NO - O - e - Oo ONOONNOOO NON oON oFN oON owm OON OON oON eom oom oON oON Ocoo: Eoswxoz .o mo OO Om No no OO moF Nop Ne om oe eo Oowuw>wpo< .co< cocwz .o oN op ew e— - - ow o NF op ON ON cocuo mo NO NO oO Fe ee oe ON we OO oO Oe Powoom + mooNprom ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON xcoz owomosoo ONN NON NON NO OO OO NN NO OO OON OO OO NOOOOO "OONON>OOO< ocwuococoo meoocH-coz .m NONOoe O.NO ONe ome OOO ome ome ONe ome ONe ome ome ONe ome Ocoo: Fouow .< NP 2 ow o o N o O e m N F co< coz no; coo ooo >oz poo oom oo< Foo coo >oz Emuo Ooowcoo oco coco: Eco; ooooowcco sowooz wo mowpw>wuo< ocwuococoo oeoocH coho: cow Ompoz p_oo< an owoopwo>< mcoo: Eoswxoz wo cowpoooosoo NO ONOON XOOOOOOO 280 NO - O - e - Oo OFOONOO>< OON ONN OON NON OON OON NNN epN OON OON OON OON OcOOO cocpxoc .O OO OO OO Oep NO ON OOO Opp OO ON ON OON OOOOOOOOOO .cOO cOOOc .O ON eO Op ON O Op ON ON Op ON OO Oe cOOpO OO OO Oe OO OO Oe OO OO ON OO ON eO .ONOOO + OOOOOONOO OO OO OO OO OO OO .OO OO OO OO OO OO OcOo OOOOOOOO OOO OpN Oep eNp OON OO_ ON, pr NNp OON OOO OO. NOOOOO "OOOOO>OOOO ocwpococoo oEoocH-coz .O NONOOO N.NO OOO pNO ONe ONO NNO OOO pNO OOO ONO pNO OOO NNO OcOOO popop .O NO pp Op O O N O O O O N p co< co: OOO coo ooo >oz poo oom oo< Foo coo >oz OOOcOO OOO OOOOc coop Econ oOpooOccH cowooz wo Oowpw>wpo< ocwpocmcoo oeooco coooz cow Oppoo< oPoEoO an opoopwo>< Ocoo: Eoswxoz wo cowpopoosoo OO OpOop XOOOOOOO 281 NO - O - e - OO oNoono>< eeN oN oo OO ONN eo OO oN NNN oo oN ON Ocooz soswxoz .o oo eo NO No oN NO No ON No oO oe OO mowpw>wpo< .co< cocwz .o -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- cocpo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NoNooO oco Ooowoppom om om om om om om om om om om om om xcoz owpmosoo om om om om om om om om om om om om Ncoocv Hmowpw>wpo< ocwpococoo osoocH-coz .O Acocopwco N.NO eON eoN NON ooN eNN ONN ooN ONN eNN ooN ONN ooN Ocooz NopoN .< NF 2 op o o N O O e m N _. co< coz OON coo ooo >oz poo omm oo< Noo coo No: Empo OONcOO OOO OOOOc EcoO oopoowcco Eowooz wo mowpw>wpo< ocwpococoo osoocH coho: cow coooo opwco On mpoopwo>< Ocoo: Eoewxoz wo cowpopooEoo eO OFOON xOOOOOOe 282 NO - O - O - OO oNOono>< ooN oNN ooN NeN ONO OON OON OON ooO NON oON oON Ocooz Eoewxoz .o NO NO mo No me NN om OO Ne NO OO eN moppw>wpo< .co< cocwz .o N— oN ON NN o ON oN NN eN O op ON cocpo NN ON NO Oe NN OO ON ON OO NO NO eO Nowoom + Ooowowpom ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON xcoz owpmoeoo OON NNN NO eO OO NN NO OO ON OO OO OO NcOOOo "OOOp_>cOOO ocwpococoo osoocH-coz .O NONOOO N.NO woe NNe NOO NNe NNe ooe NNe ooe NNe NNe ooe NNe Ocoo: Nopow .< NP Z 2 O O N O O e O N N co< coz OOO coo ooo >oz poo oom oo< Noo coo >oz EopH OONcOO OOO OOOOc Econ oopoopccH oocoo wo wwwpw>wpo< ocwpococoo msoocH coho: cow Oo—oz pNoo< On o—oopwo>< Ocoo: Eoswxoz wo cowpopooeoo OO ONOON XOOOOOOO 283 AO - O - O - OO ONOopcOOO ONN eON ooN OoN OON oON oNN OoN NNN oON eNN OoN Ocoo: Eoewxoz .o oN OoN NO NoN oN No oNN ONN NO OO Oo NNN Oowpw>wpo< .co< cocwz ..o ON NN NN eN oN NN NN eN oO oN oN NN cocpo oO No NO OO NO oe OO NO Ne NO NO OO Nowoom + moowowpom OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO xcoz owpmosoo NON OON oON OOO NNN OON OON NON NON OON ONN NNN Ncoocv ”mowpw>wpo< ocwpococoo osoocH-coz .O NONOOO O.NO oOe Ooe Oee ooe Ooe oOe OOe oOe ooe ooe ooe ooe Ocoo: Nopow .< NF 2 o— o O N O O e O N N co< coz OOO coo ooo >oz poo omm oo< Foo coo Ooz sopH OOchO OOO Oococ Econ umpoowcco mocoo wo mowpw>rpoc;ocOpococmw.weoocm coOo: cow Ooposom ppoo< 3 03235 2.3: stat: 9.5.339 mm upcoh xwecunac. 284 NO - O - O - OO ONOONNO>O NNO OO NO pO PO OO NO OO NO OO NO OO OcOOO cocwxoz .O NN OO OO OO ON OO OO OO NN OO OO OO OOOOO>NOOO .cOO cOOOc .O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- cmcpo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FoNooO + moowowpmm ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ccOO ONOOOEOO ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ccOOOO "OONOO>OOOO ocwpococmo oEoocH-coz .O NeocONOOO N.OO OON ONN OON ONN OO_ NNN ONN NN_ OON ONN NON Opp OcOOO OOOON .O NN N. ON O O N O O O O N p co< coz non coo ooo >oz poo omm oo< Foo coo >oz EmpH OONcOO OOO OOOOO Econ umpoowccH oocoo wo mowpw>wpo< ocppococoo oEoocH coooz cow coooo onco On oNooNpo>< Ocooz Eowaoz wo cowpopooEoo NO ONOON xOOOOOOO BIBLIOGRAPHY 10. ll. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY AID, Project No. 493-0306, 1979, Project Paper "Thailand Rural Off- Farm Employment Assessment Project," Project Paper, February. Amyot, Jacques, 1976, Village Ayuthaya: Social and Economic Condi- tions of a Rural Population in Central Thailand, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute, Bangkok. Anderson, 0. and M.W. Leiserson, 1978, Rural Enterprise and Nonfarm Employment, World Bank, Washington, D.C., January. Asian Institute of Technology, 1978, ”Water fOr the Northeast Vol.: Main Report," AIT, Bangkok, Thailand. Apibunyopas, J., 1981, “An Economic Analysis of Employment in Kenaf, Cassava and Sugarcane Production and Processing in Northeast Thailand," Conference Paper No. 12, Center for Applied Econ- omics Research, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok Bank, 1978, The Annual Economic Report, 1978, Annual Bul- letin, Bangkok, Thailand. Bernten, R., 1979, "Design and Management of Survey Research: A Guide for Agricultural Researchers," CRIA/IRRI Cooperative Program, Bogor, Indonesia. Birowa, A.T., Circa, 1975, "Agricultural Credit in Jati Village, West Java Province of Indonesia," FAO, UN, Agricultural Credit Studies Working Paper No. 10, Rome. Bishop, C.E., 1955, "Part-Time Farming and the Low Income Farm Problem," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 37, No. 5. Bishop, C.E., 1956, "Programming Farm-Nonfarm Allocation of Farm Family Resources," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 38, No. 2. Byerlee, Derek, 1973, "Indirect Employment and Income Distribution Effects of Agricultural Development Strategies: A Simulation Approach Applied to Nigeria," Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Byerlee, Derek, et al., 1977, "Rural Employment in Tropical Africa: Summary of Findings," Working Paper No. 20, Department of Agri- cultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 285 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 286 Chalamwong, Y., 1981, "An Analysis of Household Labor Supply for Off-Farm Enterprises,“ Conference Paper No. 18, Center for Applied Economics Research, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Charsombut, P., 1978, "The Redistribution of Labor Force Between the Agricultural and Nona ricultural Sectors in Thailand," (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. Charsombut, P., 1981, "The Silk Industry in Thailand," Conference Paper No. 17, CAER, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Charsombut, P. and R. Poosiripinyo, 1981, "Mat Production in the Northeast," Conference Paper No. 28, CAER, Kasetsart Univer- sity, Bangkok, Thailand. Cho, Y.S., 1963, "Disguised Unemployment in Underdeveloped Areas with Special Reference to South Korean Agriculture," Univer- sity of California Press, Berkeley, California. Chuta, E. and C. Leidholm, 1979, "Rural Off-Farm Employment-—A Review of the State of the Art," Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Chuta, E., 1976, "The Economics of Rural and Urban Small-Scale Industries in Sierra Leone," African Rural Economy Paper No. 14, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Clayton, E.S., 1964, Agrarian Development in Peasant Economics, London: Pergamon Press. Collingson, M.P., 1972, Farm Management in Peasant Agriculture, New York: Praeger. Connor, L.J., 1954, "Long-Run Adjustments for Farm Operators in Sparsely Populated High Risk Areas of the Great Plains," (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. ESCAP, 1979, "Thailand: Establishment of Pilot Projects in Khon Kaen and Songkhla Provinces in Support of Integrated Industrial- ization in Nonmetropolitan Areas," INA Series No. 4, Bangkok, Thailand. Evenson, R.E., 1978, "Introduction to the Symposium on Household Economics," The Philippine Economic Journal, Vol. XVII, Nos. 1 and 2. Flanders, N.W., 1977, "Maximizing the Income of Coastal Maine Small Farm Families: A Linear Programming Model," (unpublished M.S. thesis), Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 287 Fleckenstein, Fritz V., 1980, Work and Days: An Intensive Record KeepingStudyof Irrigated and Rainfed Farmers in Northeast Thailand, FAO. Fuhs, F.W. and J. Vingerhoets, 1972, "Rural Manpower, Rural Institu- tions and Rural Employment in Thailand," Manpower Planning Division, National Economic Development Board, Bangkok, Thailand. Fuller, A.M. and J.A. Mage, 1977, "A Directory of Part-Time Farming Studies,“ Vol. 1, North American and Western Europe, Depart- ment of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Gardiner, W.H. and J.W. Wysong, 1975, "Combining Farm and Nonfarm Labor Employment Opportunities for Maximum Long-Run Income," Maryland Agri-Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, September. Grible, R.J., 1973, "The Central Highlands of Thailand: A Study of Farming Systems," Thai Department of Agriculture, Thailand. Hart, Gillian P., 1978, "Labor Allocation Strategies in Rural Javanese Households," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Hartman, J., et al., 1974, "Expanding Agricultural Production: The Small Farmer Case," Western Farm Economics Association, August. Heady, E.O. and W. Caudler, 1969, Linear Programming Methods, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Heyer, J., 1971, "Linear Programming Analysis of Constraints on Peasant Farms in Kenya," Food Research Institute Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, Stanford University, Stanfbrd, California. Hoover, H., 1961, "Part-time Farming--Its Role and Prospects in the Clay-Hills Areas of Mississippi, Bulletin 627, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, August, p. 18. Ho, Sam, 1976, "The Rural Nonfarm Sector in Taiwan," Studies in Employment and Rural Development, No. 32, IBRD, September, p. 9. ILO, 1974, Sharing in Development: A Program of Employment, Equity and Growth for the Philippines, Geneva: ILO, p. 502. Kada, Ryohei, 1980, Part-Time Family Farming: Off-Farm Employment and Adjustments in the United States and Japan, Center for Academic Publications, Tokyo. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 288 Kada, Ryonei, 1979, "Off-Farm Employment and Farm Adjustment: Implications of Part-Time Farming for Rural Development," A Seminar Paper Presented at the XVII International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Banff, Alberta, Canada, September. Krasovec, Stane, 1979, "Dilemmas with Multijob Holders (Part-Time Farmers) in Agriculture," A Seminar Paper Presented at the XVII International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Banff, Alberta, Canada, September. Khon Kaen University, 1976, "KKU-Ford Cropping Systems Project," Annual Report, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Lee, E.J., 1965, "Allocating Farm Resources Between Farm and Non- farm Uses," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 47, No. 2. Lee, Y.C., 1975, "Adjustment in the Utilization of Agricultural Land in South Central Michigan with Special Emphasis on Cash- Grain Farms," (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Department of Agri- cultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Liedholm, C. and E. Chuta, 1976, "The Economics of Rural and Urban Small-Scale Industries in Sierra Leone," African Rural Economy Paper No. 4, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Martin, J.H. and J. Southern, 1961, "Part-Time Farming in Northeast Texas," Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No. 970, January. Mead, D. and R. Meyer, 1981, "Rural Off-Farm Employment Surveys: Applied Economics Research," Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Meyer, Richard L., et al., 1978, "Off-Farm Employment and Income of Rural Households: The Case of Taiwan and Korea," Economics and Sociology Occasional Paper No. 492, Department of Agri- cultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Mongkolchant, C., 1973, "A Case Study of Labor Employment in Small- Scale Industries in Chiang Mai," (unpublished M.S. thesis), Kasetsart University, Thailand. Na Ayuthya, Abha Sirwongse, Friedrich W. Fuhs and Suthep Soonthornpasuch, 1979, Village Chiang Mai: Social and Economic Conditions of a Rural Population in Northern Thailand, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute, Bangkok, Thailand. National Statistical Office, 1980, "The Survey of Migration in Bangkok Metropolis," Annual Publication 1977-1980, Bangkok, Thailand. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 289 National Statistical Office, 1976, "Labor Force Survey," Annual Publication, Bangkok, Thailand. NESDB, 1976, "Population, Manpower, Employment and Wages in the Third Plan," Bangkok, Thailand. NESDB, 1977, "Population, Manpower, Employment and Wages in the Fourth Plan,“ Mimeo, Bangkok, Thailand. NESDB, 1978, "Population, Manpower, Employment and Wages in the Fourth PlanJ'Bangkok, Thailand. Norman, D.W., 1973, "Methodology and Problems of Farm Management Investigations: Experiences from Northern Nigeria," African Rural Employment Paper No. 8, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Norman, D.W., et al., 1979, "Technical Change and the Small Farmer in Hausaland, Northern Nigeria,“ Working Paper No. 27, Depart— ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, May. Onchan, Tongroj, et al., 1979, "Description of Rural Off-Farm Employment Assessment Project in Thailand," Research Paper No. 1, Center for Applied Economics Research. Orapin, S., 1981, "A Descriptive Analysis of Cotton Weaving Industry in Rural Areas in Thailand," Conference Paper No. 19, CAER, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Pongsapich, Amara, 1976, Village Khon Kaen: Social and Economic Conditions of a Rural ngulation in Central Thailand, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute, Bangkok, Thailand. Praphertehob, P., 1980, "Rural-Urban Population Movement," Develop- ment of Agricultural Economics, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Quizon, E.K., 1978, "Time Allocation and Home Production in Rural Philippine Households," The Philippine Economic Journal, Vol. XVII, Nos. 1 and 2. Rogers, D.K. and Prasit Itharattand, 1977, "Agricultural Supply Response in Northeast Thailand: Production, Resources, Income and Policy Implications," DAE-Card Analysis Series, No. 8, The Division of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, Thailand. Royal Thai Government, 1979, "Agricultural Statistics of Thailand, Crop Year 1978/79," Ministry of Agriculture, Bangkok, Thailand. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 290 Ruttan, V.W., 1955, "The Impact of Urban-Industrial Developments on Agriculture in the Tennessee Valley and the Southeast," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 37, No. 1. Salter, L.A. and Larry Diehl, 1940, "Part-Time Farming Research," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3. Sektheera, R., 1979, “The Allocation of Family Resources to Farm and Nonfarm Activity in Village in Northern Thailand," (un- published Ph.D. thesis), Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Sriswasdilek, J., 1979. "An Economic Analysis of Irrigation Develop- ment in Nam Pong Irrigation Project, Khon Kaen, Thailand," (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Thaiutsa, W., 1981, "A Case Study on Bamboo-Product Industry in Khon Kaen, Roi—Et and Chiangmai Provinces," Conference Paper No. 20, CAER, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Thodey, A. and Manu Seetisarn, 1975, "Multiple Cropping in Northern Thailand," Philippines Economics Journal, Vol. 12, No. 27. USAID-THAILAND, 1980, "Country Development Strategy Statement," Bangkok, Thailand. Vanchainavin, V., 1980, "Effect of Resource Availability on Adop- tion of More Intensive Cropping Patterns in Changwad Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand," (unpublished M.S. thesis), University of Philippines, Los Banos, Philippines. Yotopoulos, P.A., 1968, "The Empirical Content of Economic Ration- ality: A Test for a Less Developed Economy," Journal of Political Economics, November. Zarkovich, 5.5., 1966, Quality of Statistical Data, FAO, Rome.