Post on 27-May-2018
ChapterChapterChapterChapter ---- IIIIIIII
Review of Literature
34
CHAPTER - II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Review of related literature on the impact of mechanization on income of the farmers in India
Technology has a great impact on all aspects of economic life. It is
inevitable and essential for accelerated development of under-developed
countries. Infact, appropriate technology provides a valuable weapon in the
war against poverty by making better use of available resources. This
ultimately brings about prosperity for the entire population. In a nut-shell,
technology promotes efficiency and satisfies human wants from scarce
resources.
Technology is the body of knowledge, or the know-how, since the
emergence of Green Revolution the change that taken place in utilizing
technical knowledge is known as technological change. It is concerned with a
shift in production function which indicates the technical relations between
output and inputs.
In other words, it is the application of scientific discovery of production
and distribution which creates new products, new processes of manufacture and
changes in the methods of distribution. Technological change provides greater
output from resources of land, labour and capital. In this way technology
increases production with lower cost or better quality produce for the same
cost. Technology can be defined in two senses. In its narrow sense, it deals
35
with equipments and machines which are employed in production. In other
words, it involves reproducible tangible wealth which can be used a number of
times.
In a broader sense, technology includes not only reproducible tangible
wealth but also body of the knowledge, skills, ideas that help the development
and use of such machines and equipment. In the context of under-developed
agriculture, this broad definition is of great significance.
In short, technological change is expressed by capital, entrepreneurial
skill, marginal land technical skill, a trained labour force and better utilization
of labour, equipments and materials, improvement in the quality of resources,
products and methods of production and nationalization of production process.
Technological change in agriculture comprises of introduction of high
yielding variety of seeds, fertilizers, plant protection measures and irrigation.
These changes in agricultural sector enhance the productivity per unit of land
and bring about rapid increase in production.
Technological change in agriculture can be classified into two (i) Land-
augmenting technical change (ii) Labour-augmenting technical change. Land-
augmenting technical change involves change in biological techniques in crop
production. It includes mainly HYV of seeds fertilizers, irrigation and plant
protection measures.
Labour-augmenting technical change includes mechanical changes,
namely, rapid mechanization of agricultural operations, such as introduction of
36
traders combine harvestors. This change in agricultural technology in India is
regarded as “Green Revolution”. This is associated with the package of
agricultural inputs and new agricultural practices. The package approach which
includes, apart from HYV of seeds, fertilizers, inputs, weedicides, control over
water supply, tractors etc. are the major feature of new agricultural technology.
Indian agriculture has witnessed significant changes in production
technology through the introduction of high yielding varieties of crops,
especially wheat and intensive application of complementary modern inputs in
farming. The new momentum created by modern seeds and fertilizers was
considered the initiation of Green Revolution. Consequently, the consumption
of several agro-inputs like pesticides, growths regulating compounds and
weedicides have increased, besides the fertilizers all over the country. It is
accepted that consequent to the adoption of modern technology the farm
production has increased considerably.
Malya (1961)1 defines income as the total agricultural household
income of the family consisting of receipts from occupation, dairy enterprise,
rent received, interest on loans and remittance received, if any.
Shetty (1963)2 discusses the implication of technological advance in
plantation crops in India and concludes that despite some gains in yield per
acre of coffee, tea and rubber, cost per unit of output increases due to the
adoption of new technology. 1 Meenakshi Malya, “An Analysis of personal income Distribution in Rural Areas”, Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics 16(3), P.187-196, 1961. 2 K.T. Shetty “Implication of Technological change in Commercial crops – A case study of
plantation crops in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(3), P.56-63, 1963.
37
Edwin Faris (1964)3 states that improvement of plant and animal
varieties, introduction of new type of insecticides and fertilizers, mechanization
in agriculture and effective use of many of the factors of production have been
esteemed as technological change.
National Council of Applied Economics Research (1964)4 preferred
the term ‘Motorization’ to Mechanization. Motorization according to it, would
mean substitution of tractors for animals as means of traction as against the
mechanization meaning substitution of machines for any kind of labour animal
as well as human.
Bradford and Johnson (1964)5 categorize farm expenses into four types:
i) Items which are wholly used within the year. These items include
seed, feed, fertilizers etc. This is sometimes called current expenses.
ii) Depreciation on properties.
iii) Decrease in inventories of operating capital, feed and supplies other
than feed.
iv) Uses of the labour services performed by the members of the family
other than the operator.
3 Edwin Faris, “Structural change and competitive relationship among buying and selling Firms”,
Journal of Farm Economics, 46(5), P. 1238-1245, 1964. 4 National council of applied Economic Research Agriculture and live stock in Rajasthan, Chapter V
– Page-44, Allied publishers, New Delhi, 1964. 5 Laurence A. Bradford and Glen L. Johnson “Farm management Analysis” (New York: John Willy
and Sons) (inc. London, 1964) 5.
38
Sarkar and Prahaladachar (1966)6 define technology as the
combination of various productive factors and technological progress implies
change in this input mix in such a way as to increase output per unit of
resources and reduce production cost per rupee of output.
Kahlon and Kaul (1968)7 have observed that the new strategy in
agriculture revolves around the cultivation of high yielding varieties which are
highly responsive to fertilizer and are at the same time more time resistant to
insect, pest and diseases.
Lavania and Dixit (1968)8 argue that the high yielding varieties yield
higher than the local varieties is too general an observation for any economic
analysis. The success of a programme of this nature should consider the net
gains of the farm fairly and not mere increase in the physical product. Their
study is intended to examine the economics of high yielding varieties of wheat,
maize, bajra and compare it with that of the local varieties in one of the blocks
of Aligary District.
Venkataram (1968)9 makes a comparison between local and hybrid
varieties of Jowar in their cost of cultivation, yield and returns and concludes
that cost of cultivation for hybrid Jowar is more than that of for local variety
6 K.K. Sarkar and M.Prahaladachar, “Mechanization as a Technological Change”, Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 21(1), P.171-182, 1966. 7 A.S. Kahlon and J.D. Kaul, “Comparative study of Economics of Hyv’s of wheat – Punjab State”.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.79-86, 1968. 8 G.S. Lavania and R.S. Dixit, “Economics of Hyv’s in package District, Aligarh,” Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.93-103, 1968. 9 J.V. Venkataram, “Economic Aspects of High yielding crops Hybrid Jowar” Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.134-138, 1968.
39
due to increased needs of fertilizers and pesticides and yield of hybrid Jowar is
2½ times more than that of local variety.
Bhati (1969)10 shows that technological change mainly involves the use
of wonder seeds coupled with the use of fertilizers irrigation, pesticides and
other modern input.
Sharma (1969)11 divides the cost of production of farm crops into fixed
cost and variable cost. The fixed cost includes cash expenses on permanent
human and animal labour, depreciation on farm implements and machineries,
land revenue and cesses, rental value of land and interest on permanent
investment other than lend.
The variable cost covers wages paid to hired human labour, cost of seed
manures and fertilizers, irrigation charges betterment levy and miscellaneous
costs such as plant protection charges, cost of gunny bags and interest on
variable costs.
Shah and Agarwal (1970)12 conclude that with the introduction of new
technology, the income level of progressive farmers has considerably increased
in Uttar Pradesh. There is a significant difference in the income level of
progressive and less progressive farmers in the different size groups of
10 J.P. Bhati, “Adoption of improved seeds – prospects and problems”, Agricultural situation in India,
25(9), P.967-970, 1969. 11 A.C. Sharma, “Scale Economics in the production of Farm crops in the cotton Belt of Punjab”
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(3) P.283, 1969. 12 S.L .Shaw and R.C. Agarwal, “Impact of New Technology on the level of Income and pattern of
income distribution and savings of farmers in Central U.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.110-121, 1970.
40
holdings and income inequalities have widened among the farmers due to the
adoption of new technology.
Garg et al. (1970)13 state that the adoption of HYV of crops have
helped in increasing income proportionate to the percentage of adoption in all
groups of farmers with the adoption of HYV, the additional income per hectare
has accounted for more than double the expenditure. It is also observed that
technology is neutral to the size of the farm and it tends to reduce the
disparities between the various groups of farms.
Kahlon (1970)14 observes that because of the divisible nature of the
farm technology, farm income of small farmers tends to rise although those of
the big farmers have risen faster.
Shaw and Singh (1970)15 have conducted a study relating to technology
and employment. They have observed that skilled labour is needed to perform
the technically exacting routines of machinery, water, soil and crop
management in the new technology. They compare a typical farm and a tractor
farm and conclude the employment. On the typical farm/acre is more than that
in the tractor farm which shows a decrease in employment due to
mechanization.
13 J.S. Garh, G.N. Singh and H.L. Srivastava, “Impact of Hyv of crops on patterns of income
distribution”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.115-121, 1970. 14 A.S. Kahlon, “New Farm Technology its implications in Agricultural Economics”. Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics 25(4), P.1-11, 1970. 15 S.L. Singh and L.R. Singh, “The Impact of New Agricultural technology on Rural Employment in
North West U.P.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.29-33, 1970.
41
Desai et al. (1970)16 have undertaken study to measure the impact of use
of improved seed and irrigation and to measure the change in participation of
family labour in farming due to introduction of new methods of farming. They
have worked out permanent, family and casual labour requirement for 5 crops
namely groundnut, bajra, wheat, Jowar and cotton for both hybrid and local
varieties and conclude that only improved varieties of wheat use less labour
and could give less family labour earning than those under local varieties.
Bardhan (1970)17 counter argues that the green revolution may not help
in raising agricultural employment.
Vyas et al. (1970)18 in their study to identify the size of holdings which
would enable an average farmer become viable in terms of certain desired level
of income by adopting high yielding varieties, conclude that for making non-
viable farms viable the level of efficiency at which the new technology is
adopted is more important than the extent of area brought under the new
technology.
Bainer (1970)19 observed that machines were more efficient in keeping
of the time lines of the field operations and decreasing the use of human and
animal energy.
16 D.R. Desai, G.A, Patel and R.J. Patel “Impact of Modern Farm technology on Rural Development
in Saurastra”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.33-39, 1970. 17 Pranab Bardhan, “Green Revolution and Agricultural Labourers” Economics Political Weekly
5(29,30&31), P.1239-1246, 1970. 18 V.S. Vyas – D.S. Tyagi and V.N. Misra, “Significance of the new strategy of agricultural
development for small farmers- A cross sectional study of two areas of Gujarat” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(1), P.115-116, 1970.
19 Bainer, S., “Mechanized crop production” Indian Journal of Agricultural News Digest 1(10,11), P.312-318, 1970.
42
Parnape (1970)20 indicated that mechanization will increase the
production and ultimately raise the standard of living and increase economic
welfare. He was of the opinion that mechanization would increase the real
purchasing power of the people and thus have a leverage effect in demand for
other products.
According to Singh et al. (1971)21 mechanization of agriculture means
the use of machines like tractors, water pumps, threshers, chaff cutters operated
by oil, battery or electricity in the place of similar implements operated
manually or by bullock power.
Dandekar and Rath (1971)22 viewed employment from the perspective
of income in that an adequate level of employment must be defined in terms of
its capacity to provide a minimum living to population.
Acharya (1972)23 concludes that use of fertilizers and insecticides
increases with the participation in the HYV programme and mechanization.
Secondly, bullock labour input increases with the HYV and decreases with
mechanization. Thirdly, participant farms have relatively larger area under
20 Parnape, R., “Experiment in the use of Large scale machinery” Journal of Farm Economics 14(2),
P.336-340, 1970. 21 K.B. Singh, B.B.P.S. Goel and V.V.R. Murthy, “Estimation of availability of bullock power in
certain tracts of India”. Agricultural situation in India, 25(7), P.483-487, 1971. 22 Dandekar V.M., and Rath, “Poverty in India” Economic and political Weekly, 6 (2), P.138, 1971. 23 S.S. Acharya, “Impact of Technological change on Farm Employment and Income distribution in
Agricuture” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 1972.
43
irrigation compared to non-participants and percentage of irrigated are and
fertilizers used is higher for small farmers compared to medium and larger
farms.
According to Vendattappa (1972)24, mechanization is a picture of
sophisticated machines increasingly engaged in the replacement of reduction of
human and animal power.
Patel and Patel (1972)25 viewed that any use of mechanized power in
the place of human or animal power for agricultural operation amounts to farm
mechanization.
Ramasamy (1972)26 defines new technology as the use of hybrid seeds
coupled with the use of chemical fertilizers, plant protection chemicals,
improved implements and machines and effective use of many of these factors
of production with high level of useful knowledge on the part of farm people.
Ramasamy (1972)27 concludes that the income gap between the
progressive and the less progressive farmers has widened consequent to the
adoption of new technology and the level of income increases with the intensity
of adoption of new technology.
24 Venkatappa, B., “Farm mechanization in India”, seminary series IX, problems of Farm
Mechanization, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, P.2-15, 1972. 25 S.M. Patel and K.V. Patel. “Progress of Farm Mechanization in India seminar series IX, problems
of Farm Mechanization. India society of Agricultural Economics, P.29-44, 1972. 26 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of New Technology on Income and pattern of Income Distribution among
farmers – A study in Palani Block, Madurai District, TamilNadu, unpublished M.Sc, (Agri,) thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics TamilNadu Agricultural University 1972.
27 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of New Technology Income and pattern of income distribution among farmers – A case study in Palani Block Madurai District, TamilNadu” Unpublished (M.Sc) Agriculture thesis department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu, Coimbatore 1972.
44
Subba Rao (1972)28 observes the two striking features in the
relationship between credit and adoption of high yielding variety technology
(a) the high proportion of owned fund for financing current farm expenditure
on HYV and (b) the failure of the borrowers especially small farmers, to lift the
entire credit made available to them by the Co-operative Institutions especially
in Eastern India.
Ramasamy (1972)29 observed groups and farms having 20 percent or
more of total cropped area under high yielding varieties as progressive class
and the rest as less progressive.
Singh et al. (1972)30 classify high progressive farmers are those who are
possessing tractor and tube-well having at least 50 percent of their cropped area
under HYV of crops.
Progressive farmers are those who have their own tube wells and at least
25 percent of the area under HYV. Traditional farmers are those farmers who
have no improved farm implements but are having less than 25 percent of the
cropped area under high yielding varieties.
Parameshwara Rao (1972)31 states that farm mechanization means
application of mechanical power to perform agricultural operations and to
increases farm production and to raise the standard of living of the people
28 K. Subba Rao, “Institutional credit, uncertainty and adoption of Hyv technology: A comparison of
East Uttar Pradesh with West Utter Pradesh. 29 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of new technology on income and pattern of income distribution among
farmers – A study in palani block Madurai District. TamilNadu, Department of Agricultural Economics, TNAU, 1972, Unpubishe (M.Sc) Agri. Thesis, Coimbatore.
30 Ram Iqbal Singh, R. Kunwar and Shri Ram “Impact of new agricultural technology and Mechanization on Labour Employment”. Indian Journal of Agricultual Economics 27(4), P.210-214, 1972.
31 K. Parameshwara Rao, “Southern Economists, March 1982, Vol.20, No.21, Page.19.
45
working in agriculture. Mechanization is partial when only part of the farm
work is done by machine. It is complete when animal or human labour is
completely displaced by the power operated machines.
Nandal (1972)32 defined the term farm income as the value of the crops
and live-stock products sale of farm assets, receipts of rent, custom services
etc.
Sharma (1972)33 defined the gross income as the income from the crops
grown, the value of both main products and by products were considered in
estimating the gross income.
Farm income is the difference between receipts and expenses. It is what
the operator received for his own and family labour for the year and for the use
of the capital invested by them.
Rai et al. (1972)34 define income of agricultural house hold, to include
the total agricultural income, loan taken and non-agricultural income received
during the period under study.
Pandey et al. (1972)35 define income as the total of agricultural and
non-agricultural income consisting of those received from commercial
establishments, carpet weaving, and other trades.
32 Nandal D.S. “Investment pattern in Haryana State” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics
28(5), P.75, 1972. 33 Sharma, R., “Explanatory Notes on important erns relating to crop loan” Financing Agriculture,
4(1), P.29, 1972. 34 K.N. Rai, D.K.Groves and D.S.Nandal, “Investment and savings pattern in irrigated Zones of
Haryana state”. Indian Journal of agricultural Economics 27(4), P.75-82, 1972. 35 H.K. Pandey, Viswanath and P.P. Singh “Pattern of Income savings and investment in Agriculture
in Eastern U.P” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(4), P.51-55, 1972.
46
Kahlon (1972)36 estimates gross income of farm family by adding all he
incomes from farm non-farm sources and borrowings from institutional and
non-institutional sources.
Misra (1972)37 observed that per hectare decrease in human labour
employment varied from 6.67 percent in maize to 57.78 percent in wheat while
decreases in bullock labour varied from 64.71 percent in Maize to 90.48
percent in wheat.
Raj (1972)38 reported that tractorisation did not result in any significant
displacement of wage labour. The installation of pumps and tube-wells created
demand for casual labour in replacement of permanent farm workers but the
acquisition of tractors created demand for more permanent farm workers.
Moens (1973)39 explained that agriculture is characterized by small
holdings, low farm income and low labour cost. Mechanization will be
successful only through the development of appropriate machine to meet the
needs of the conditions prevailing in the country.
Rao (1973)40 argued that a blanket assumption of full employment norm
of 48 hours a week implies work of eight hours a day for six days of work
36 A.S. Kahlon, “Savings and Investment pattern of Farm families in Punjab”. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 27(4), P.19-28, 1972. 37 Misra S.P. “Impact of tractorisation – A study in a Tahsil of M.P. “Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics page 237 31(2), 1972. 38 K.N. Raj, “Mechanization of Agriculture in India and Sri Lenka” International Labour Review
106(4), 315-334, 1972. 39 Moens, R., “An Economic analysis of Mechanization” Yojana 12(2), P.23-25, 1973. 40 Rao, S.K.”Measurement of Rural unemployment”. Economic and Political Weekly, 8(39) A 78-A
90, 1973.
47
which is perhaps not an universally full employment norm to assume as several
attached labourers do in fact worked more hours than that.
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1973)41 defines farm
business income as the measure of earning of the farmer and his family for
management, risk, their labour and capital investment (Gross receipts minus
A1 / A2).
They also define farm labour income as what the farmer and his family
receive for management, risk and their physical labour that is gross income
minus cost B and Net Income (profit or loss) as gross income minus Cost C.
For the present study gross income is defined as the total value of the
main product and by product of the particular crops valued at the market price.
Net income is defined as the gross income less cost of cultivation of crops, live
stocks maintenance, maintenance cost of farm buildings and farm machinery
and equipments.
Bernard and Nix (1973)42 have classified costs in farming into fixed
cost and variable cost. Fixed cost represents farming expenses on an overhead
nature and does not change with the levels of output taxes, depreciation, cash
rent, interest payments form the fixed cost. Variable cost refers to the farming
expenses which change with output. It relates to the variable resources.
41 “Studies in Economics of Farm Management in Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu” Three year
combined Reports (1970-71 to 72-73) Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi..
42 C.S. Bernard and J.S.Nix “Farm planning and control”. (Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1973), 45.
48
Mosher (1974)43 by farm mechanization we mean introducing the use of
mechanical procedures into farm operation in an area where these procedures
have not previously been used. In the process both the machines themselves
and the institutional arrangements by which they are made available to and
used by farmers are included. Strictly speaking, the design and manufacture of
farm equipment is external to farm mechanization as such, but the suitability of
equipment for profitable use on farms in specific localities is so important to
the success of farm mechanization that design and manufacture can usefully be
included as part of farm mechanization itself.
Singh and Ramanna (1974)44 observe that the adoption of improved
technology coupled with adequate credit facility dynamises the income
potential and offers the single best measure to solve the chronic problem of
under employment of family labour on small farms and for labour in
agricultural sector in general.
Mittal and Sacena (1974)45 define fixed costs as those which are
independent of the level of production whereas variable costs as those which
vary with the level of production.
43 A.T. Mosher, “Some policy issues and Research Needs” Experience in Farm Mechanization in
south East Asia. Edited by Herman south worth and Milton Barneth, page-335, 1974, published by the Agricultural Department Council, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.10020, Tanglin P.O.84, Singapore-10.
44 Shiv Karan Singh and R. Ramanna “The Role of Credit and technology in increasing income and employment on small and large farming in Western Region Hyderabad District, A.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(3), P.41-51.
45 J.P. Mittal and R.P.Saxena “A mathematical Expression for cost analysis of Farm Equipments”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 29(1), P.51, 1974.
49
Mittal and Singh (1975)46 defined mechanized farms as those farms
where farm operations such as ploughing, harrowing and threshing were done
by tractors.
According to the National Council of Applied Economics Research
(1975)47 Mechanization meant substitution of machines for any kind of labour,
animal as well as human.
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1975)48 also a categorizes
costs into Cost A1, A2, B, C. Cost A, approximates the actual expenditure
incurred in kind and cash and it includes (a) Hired human labour (b) owned and
hired bullock and labour (c) seeds, (d) manures and fertilizers, (e) plant
protection chemicals (f) machine labour (g) land revenue, cess, water rates (h)
depreciation on implements, machinery and farm buildings (i) interest on
working capital.
Cost A2 is cost A1 plus rental value of leased in land. This applies only
for tenancy farms Cost B is Cost A2 plus interest on fixed capital excluding
land and rental value of owned land. Cost C is cost B plus imputed value of
family labour.
46 Mittal F.P. and Singh T.F., “Mathematical models for the cost analysis of tractor custom unit”.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 30(1) P.69, 1975. 47 National Council of Applied Economic Research, Agricultural Live-stock in Rajasthan, Chapter V,
Allied Publishers, Page.44, 1964. 48 Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1975), op cit.
50
Acharya (1976)49 divides farms into small farmers (below 5 acres),
medium (5-10 acres), and large farmers (above 10 acres). Besides he breaks the
farms into three mechanization levels.
a. Bullock-operated farms. All operations are performed with bullocks and
human labour. In other words they can be called as non-mechanized
farms.
b. Pump-oriented farms. Irrigation is done by electric or diesel pumpsets
and all other operations are carried out by bullock and human labour.
c. Tractor operated farms. Pumpsets are used for irrigation and other
operations are carried by tractors and bullocks.
Stout and Downing (1976)50 defined mechanization to encompass the
use of hand tools and animal drawn implements as well as motorized
equipments to reduce human efforts to perform certain operation that cannot be
accompanied by other means and to improve the quality of work.
Smith (1976)51 defined employment as a state in which a person
combined his/her physical and or mental efforts with other resources including
other human effort in a production process.
49 S.S. Acharaya, “Prospects for Agricultural labour in the context of New Agricultural technology in
Rajasthan Rural Labour in India. Edited by S.M. Pandey Page.30 1976. Sri.Ram centre for Industrial Relations and human Resources, 5, Sadhu Vasvani Marg, New Delhi-110 005.
50 Stout B.A. and C.M. Downing, “Agricultural Mechanization Policy”. International Labour Review 113(2), P.171-187, 1976.
51 Smith L.D., “The political economy of employment criterion in agriculture” Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(3), P.351-363, 1976.
51
Hayami and Herdt (1977)52 state that technological progress for a
commodity implies a downward shift in the cost function and hence a right
shift in supply function which with a downward sloping demand curve resulted
in a larger quantity at a lower cost.
Ketkar (1977)53 has found that the farmers in the traditional sector are
generally efficient, most of the inefficiency arising from the introduction of
new technology has resulted from excessive diversification in the cropping
production patterns.
The Government report (1977)54 on HYV in India shows that high
yielding varieties fail to approach their potential yields under field conditions
and frequently achieve yields below or barely matching those of the existing
local or local improved varieties.
Jain (1977)55 has formulated a criterion to measure technological
advancement on the basis of three indicators.
a. Percentage of area under HYV to total cropped area
b. Percentage of irrigated area to total cropped area
c. Fertilizer consumption per hectare in kilograms.
52 Yujiro Hayami and Robert W. Herdt, “Market price Effects of Technological change on Income
Distribution in semi subsistence Agriculture” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(2), P.245-246, 1977.
53 S.L. Ketkar, “Impact of New Technology on Indian Agriculture – A programming Approach” Dissertation Abstracts International 34(6), P.2874, 1977.
54 Government of India “The Hyvp in India 1970-75 part II” controller of publications, Delhi 1977. 55 Baboolal Jain, “Impact of technological changes in Human Labour employment and its
productivity in Agriculture in sehore block, sehore District, M.P.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics Banaras Hindu University, 1977.
52
Further, he has grouped farms having 20 percent or more of the gross
cropped area under HYV as adopters and farms sowing local varieties of crops
and having less than 20 percent area under HYV as non-adopters.
Mclnerney (1978)56 defines technology as a matrix of characteristics,
structures and processes, entwined with the system of human activity found in
rural areas and a change in technology means some alternations in this
complex.
Roy (1978)57 conducted a study on farm tractorisation productivity and
labour employment in order to find out the impact of tractorisation on
employment and concluded that the use of tractors has resulted in seven percent
more employment and 23 percentage higher output in wheat farms.
Sharma (1978)58 while studying the comparative statistics of labour
input per hectare on two types of farm organizations concluded that the labour
use was slightly higher (1.96%) in mechanized farms as compared to bullock
operated farms.
Singh (1979)59 in his study on the economics of tractor use in Punjab
has observed that the utilization of human labour in the case of medium and
large sized tractor farms was 18.85 and 33.03 percent less compared to bullock
farms.
56 John P. Mclnerney, “Technological Innovations in Rural Development, “The Technology of Rural
Development” (World Bank Staff Working paper No.295, 1978), 2. 57 Roy S.Farm tractorisation, productivity and labour employment – A case study of Indian Punjab –
Journal of Development studies. 14(2), 193-209, 1978. 58 Sharma A.C. “Farm mechanization in Punjab” Agricultural and Agro-Industries Journal 11 (5),
P.24, 1978. 59 Bhagat Singh, “Economics of Tractor use” Yojana 23(9), 19, 1979.
53
Kahlon (1980)60 observed that the index of cropping intensity was
177.62 for the pure tractor farms as compared to 158.65 percent for the pure
bullock farms.
Renganathan (1981)61 defines technology as the use of hybrid seeds
along with chemical fertilizers, plant protection, chemicals, improved
implements and machines for higher productivity.
Ushaben (1981)62 concludes that the impact of high yielding seed
varieties on output and area in the case of wheat is remarkable. The adoption of
HYV’s has helped to accelerate growth rates of output and yield for Jowar
Bajra and total food grains.
She also observed that the adoption of HYV on large area has been
instrumental in stepping up the output group substantially.
Rao (1982)63 favours mechanization in agriculture and he places some
reasons for it.
a. To over come labour shortage during the peak periods and on draught
animals which have low productivity and high costs?
b. To increase the rate at which operations are performed by timely and
effective farm operations.
60 Kahlon, A.S. (1980), op cit P.55. 61 V.S. Renganathan, “Technology, productivity and Farm size in Rice production in Palayamkottai
Block, Tirunelveli District, Uupublised M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis Department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu, Agricultural University, Coimbatore 1981.
62 Ushaben sharma, “Contribution of Hyv’s to cereal output, yield and area in Gujarat” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 36(1), P-79-81, 1981.
63 Parameshwara Raw, “Southern Economist” Vol.20, No.21, March 1, P.19, 1982.
54
c. To step up total production by using water pumps and adopting multiple
cropping.
d. To perform tasks that cannot be done effectively by traditional methods.
e. Many of the major crop operations in India are rigidly bound by the
season. Because of the labour during peak period is very high and hence
labour shortage is usually experienced. This necessitates the use of
mechanical appliances in our agriculture.
f. As better land preparation and also timeliness of agricultural operations
are crucial for higher production, we are forced to use tractors in
agriculture despite their adverse effects on employment.
g. Our traditional implements are crude, inefficient and inadequate. It is
highly uneconomical to complete agricultural operations using them.
They need to be replaced by improved agricultural machinery and
implements.
Bina Agarwal (1983)64 categorizes farms into (a) Tractor using and
exclusively bullock using. (b) Tractor owning and tractor hiring. (c) Tube-well
irrigated and exclusively canal irrigated – these contain both the tractor and the
bullock farms.
64 Bina Agarwal, “Mechanization in Indian Agriculture” Impact of alternative Techniques on farm
output and employment” page.165 1983. Allied publishers private Ltd., prarthana Flats, 1st Floor, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad- 380 009.
55
Bina Agarwal (1983)65 points out that the use of tractors and tube-wells
in comparison with the use of bullocks and canals respectively is associated
with higher cropping intensity. However, the advantage of tube-wells over
canals is found to be much greater than that of tractors over bullocks.
Among the tractor using farms, it is essentially those owning tractors
which account for the higher average cropping intensity; those depending
solely on hired tractors are not found to differ very much from bullock farms in
their level of cropping intensity.
Farmer in his study on the Green Revolution in Punjab indicated that
mechanization would prove a boon than a curse if alternative employment
could be arranged for the agricultural worker.66
Singh and Singh (1985)67 in their study on the impact of mechanization
on human and bullock labour use in two regions of Utter Pradesh have found
that the magnititude of labour displacement due to tractorisation decreased with
the increases in farm size.
Sidhu and Singh (1986)68 define Technological change as all the
available means which improve the efficiency of converting scarce resources
into products which satisfy human wants. It manifests itself in the use of new
65 Bina Agarwal (1983) “Cropping Intensity effects of Mechanization”. Mechanization in Indian
Agriculture. Allied publishers Private Limited, Ahmedabad. 66 Parmer B.S.(1970) “The Green Revolution what is means” Eastern Economist 54,1165-69. 67 Singh L.R. and Singh R.V., (1985) op Cit P.95. 68 D.S. Sidhu and Singh H.J. “Technological change in Indian Agricultural Development Since
Independence Edited by M.L.Dantwala and others, oxford & IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 1986.
56
inputs and knowledge leading to an upward shift of the production function in
the long-run.
Sisodia (1986)69 has conducted a study in Indore District with objectives
to find out levels of input and output in production of local and Mexican
wheats and to study the extent to which recommended practices are adopted
and to work out the input needs at the farm, village and district levels and to
define the problems which hinder the extension of new varieties.
69 J.S. Sisodia, “Some Economic Aspects of Hyvp of Indore District”, Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics 23(4), P.103-113, 1986.
57
2.2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ON THE NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY
Sangha (1964)70 defined productivity as the ratio between output and
input both measured in real terms. He also defined productivity as the ratio
between net output and number of workers or number of man hours. Capital
productivity as the ratio between net output and net capital employed and land
productivity as the ratio between net output and number of acres of land.
Billings and Singh (1970)71 came to the conclusion that mechanization
benefited society by reducing the cons of production.
Acharya (1974)72 viewed the agricultural productivity in terms of yield
per hectare of land cultivated.
Bhattacharjee (1972)73 viewed the term productivity as the output per
unit of input in farm business.
Inukai (1972)74 concluded that mechanization increased labour
productivity.
Motilal (1973)75 observed that the yield of bajra in tractorized (17.94
Qtls) farms were higher as against the bullock operated farms (16.37 Qtls.).
70 Keher Sangha, “Productivity and Economic growth” Bombay, Asia publishing house, P.10, 1964. 71 Martin H. Billings and Arjun Singh “Mechanization and Rural Employment with some
implications for Rural income Distribution”. Economic and Political Weekly 26, P.61-72, 1970. 72 S.K.Acharya, “Agriculture in mehalaya mizoram and mikir and north lachar hills artha vijnana,
16(1(, P.50-57, 1974. 73 J.P.Bhattacharjee, “A survey of Farm Mechanization in Ludhiana, IADP”, Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 8 (209), 161, 1972. 74 Inukai “Employment technological change in Philippine Agriculture, International Labour
Review” 106, (2,3), P.111-139, 1972. 75 Motilas, G. “Farm and Factory Economic aspects of Tractorization”. 7(10), P.105, 1973.
58
Studies by Rao (1972)76 reaffirmed that mechanization increased
income adequately to justify the cost.
Many Researchers (1974)77 studied the impact of mechanization on the
productivity. Lawrence concluded that tractor mechanization could bring
substantial gains in production per acre.
Desai and Gopinath (1975)78 concluded that the output per hectare of
tractor farms was higher than that of non-tractor farms.
Motilal (1975)79 in his study on the economics of tractorization has
arrived at the conclusion that the net income in tractorised farms was 58.78
percent higher than that of bullock operated farms.
Gallen (1977)80 concluded that mechanization increased income as well
as employment and reduced the cost of production.
Sharma (1977)81 in his study on farm mechanization in Punjab
observed that farm mechanization has increased the yield by 7 percent without
adversely affecting the level of employment.
76 Hanumantha Rao, C.H., “Farm Mechanization in a labour abundant Economy” Economic and
Political Weekly 7, P.393-400, 1972. 77 Roger Lawrence “Some Economic aspect of Farm mechanization in Pakistan, USAID, 1970 as
cited in Planning Agriculture in low income countries”. A symposium Development study No.14, P.38, Chap.2, 1974.
78 Desai B.K and Gopinath C. “Impact of farm tractorization on productivity and employment” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9), P.271-275, 1975.
79 Motilas, G. “Impact of farm tractorization on productivity and employment” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9), P.271-275, 1975.
80 S.T.Gallen, “Economic policy opportunities and Results of mechanization in the Mountain area” World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociaological Abstract No.122, P.14, 1977.
81 Sharma A.C. “Farm mechanization in Punjab” Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, 8 (2), P.62-64, 1977.
59
Agarwal and Kumar (1985)82 have observed that the introduction of
tractor has increased the income by 5301.15 (64.5%) over the bullock
cultivation under well irrigated conditions.
Sharma (1988)83 in his study on farm mechanization in Punjab
observed that the average returns on the tractor operated farms were 28.47
percent higher than the bullock operated farms. The higher income on tractor
holdings was described to shift in the cropping patterns in favour of more
remunerative enterprises, increased cropping intensity, higher expenditure on
the yield, increasing technology and better preparation of land, timely,
performance of operation and better placement of seeds and fertilizer.
Vanitha (2008)84 states that intensive cropping system are often based
on manual labour such as in traditional paddy rice and raised – bed agriculture,
or on highly mechanized systems based on purchased inputs. Intensive
agriculture is an essential component of habitat management because it limits
requirements for new areas of land. It can however, lead to degradation of
natural resources if not managed appropriately. Modern Agriculture includes
plant breeding, biotechnology and associated intellectual property rights, all of
which are potentially able to adversely affect the natural resource base,
particularly through declining biodiversity. High productivity is obtained in
mechanized monoculture which in turn is dependent on chemicals which may
82 Agarwal and Narinder Kumar, “World Agricultural Economics and Rural sociological Abstract,
P.39. 83 Sharms A.C., (1988), Op. cit. P.27. 84 K. Vanitha (2008), Development of Modern Agriculture, Agriculture under Globalization,
Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.103.
60
inadvertently destroy desirable flora and fauna. Intensive cropping systems are
suited to those environments where high yielding varieties, chemical inputs,
fertile soils and irrigation can be guaranteed.
61
2.3. PATTERN OF TRACTOR UTILIZATION
Anand (1960)85 defined it as the ratios of total cropped area to the
cultivated are (net sown area current fallows).
Fragmented holdings, satisfaction with bullock power, lack of capital
and credit and non-availability of credit at the appropriate time were the
reasons for not using tractors according to Kolte (1967).86
Human labour includes
(a) family labour and exchange for gratis labour
(b) hired labour (Casual and Permanent)
Sanghvi (1969)87 measured the human labour in man day units of eight
hour work by and adult man. For the purpose of standardizing the word units
different categories of labour, two women or three juvenile labourers each with
eight hours of work were reckoned as one man day unit.
Kahlon and Chawal (1969)88 Cropping intensity refers to the number
of crops raised n a particular area in a year expressed in percentage. It is a
measure of land use efficiency in the farms over a period of time.
85 O.P. Anand, “Some aspects of optimum benefits from utilization of irrigation potential of chambal
valley project” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 15(4), P.19-32, 1960. 86 Kolte R. “A study of different characteristics of Farmers having mechanized and non-mechnaized
farms and problems and factors associated with mechanization of farms”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 6(1), P.27-28, 1967.
87 P. Sanghvi, “Surplus man power in Agriculture and Economic Development, Bombay, Asia publishing House, 1969, P.29.
88 A.S. Kahlon and Chawal (1969), “A study of Economic factors affecting cropping intensity in the Hissar District”, Journal of Research, 4(3), 467.
62
Patil (1970)89 reported that the size of holdings determined both the
purchasing power and economic use of tractors. He also is of the view that the
lack of suitable type of machines, high cost and inadequate facilities for the
sales and services were the causes for the slow phase of mechanization.
Khan (1970)90 identified the following factors which limited the use of
machines in a larger way they are: non-availability of tractors, lack of trained
personnel, lack of cheap fuel and lubricants, lack of necessary capital for
investments.
Selvaraj and Sundaresan (1972)91 argued that the financial handicaps,
small size of holdings, lack of servicing and training facilities were the
impediments in the process of mechanization.
Umakesan (1972)92 also standardizing the work units of farm labour by
equaling two women labour to one male labour. The same standards were used
in the present study as well.
Kanwar (1972)93 analysed that the both time and space sequence of
crops. It includes the identification of the most efficient crops of a region of
homogenous soil and climatic belt. The rotation in which the crop fits in and
89 Patil S.S. “Demand recession in India” Economic Times November 15, P.3, 1970. 90 Majid Hussain Khan, “Mechanization in West Pakistan World crops” Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 22(1), P.23-25, 1970. 91 Selvaraj P. and Sundaresan R. “Farm mechanization problems and possibilities in Farm
mechanization” Fact 6(3), P.34-35, 1972. 92 R. Umakesan, “A comparative study of tractor and non-tractor farms in coimbatore Taluk - An
Economics Appraisal”. Un-published M.Sc. Agri.Dissertation, Department of Agriculture college and Research Institute, Coimbatore, P.44, 1972.
93 J.S. Kanwar (1972), “Scope and concepts of cropping pattern in India Proceedings of the symposium on cropping patterns in India, P.15, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
63
the intensity of cropping. The cropping pattern of a farmer means the cropping
scheme as cropping intensity best suited to the farmer.
Mukhopadhya and Sarkar (1972)94 states that the crop pattern in
general is determined by regional and economic factors. The cropping pattern
existing in a region is a result of trial and error over many years. At the
individual farm level, the choice of crops and cropping sequence are
constrained by resource endowment besides farmers goal.
Singh and Patel (1973)95 viewed the bullock power as plough unit one
pair of bullock and one human labour for eight hours of work was used as
plough unit in days.
Marks (1975)96 argued that mechanization required more capital for
annual replacement. This in combination with high initial cost, severely limited
the use of tractors.
Singh and Singh (1975)97 viewed that mechanization required high level
of technical knowledge the lack of which retarded the growth in the use of
tractors.
94 A.M. Mukhopadhya and G.K.Sarkar (1972), “Economic Aspect of Cropping pattern”. Proceedings
of the symposium on cropping pattern in India, P.582, Indian council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
95 Rajivir Singh and R.K. Patel “Returns to scale, Farm size of productivity in Meerut District” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(2), P.48, 1973.
96 Marks R. “Impediments in the process of mechanization” Indian Journal of Extension Education 32(1), P.85-87, 1975.
97 Singh B.B. and Roshan Singh, “Mechanization of Farms in India” Seminar paper on Agricultural Mechanization, Anand, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, 30(3), 1975.
64
Sharma and Sharma (1975)98 considered that the huge initial
investment as compared to the bullock power and implements hampered the
extensive use of tractors. Cheap farm credit might help in the process of
increased use of tractors.
Singh and Dhawan (1976)99 found that in tractor operated farms the
share of mechanical energy was as high as 94.83 per cent compared to that of
animal energy 0.91 per cent under the existing situation.
Radhakrishnan and Sridharan (1976)100 pointed out that the level and
pattern of energy consumption varied with different operations, depending on
the cropping pattern, sources of irrigation and size of farms.
Singh and Miglani (1976)101 found that the energy use per hectare
varied significantly between different types of soil-crop-climate complexes,
levels of technology and size categories of farm. Mechanical energy was
mainly used for irrigation, preparatory tillage and threshing purposes.
Misra et al. (1976)102 concluded that at the existing pattern of use in the
sample farms, the average working hours for tractor per year was 551.27
whereas the recommended level is 1000 hours.
98 Sharma V.K. and Sharma A.N. “Economic use of bullock power” Indian Agricultural News Digest
4 (8,9) P.265-267, 1975. 99 Shingh I.J. and Dhawan, K.C. “Energy requirement of different levels of technology in Punjab”
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.243, 1976. 100 Radhakrishnan S.A. B. Sridharan, “A study on the Inter-Regional variation in Energy utilization in
Agriculture in TamilNadu” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.223, 1976. 101 Singh A.J. and Miglani S.S. “An Economic Analysis of Energy requirement in Punjab
Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.165, 1976. 102 Mishra D.K. Pandey R.N. and Pandey V.K. “Economic costs of Bullock and tractor power use in
Uttar Pradesh Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.193, 1976.
65
Rebello et al. (1976)103 viewed the bullock power in terms of plough
unit. A plough unit includes a pair of bullocks along with a man.
Namboodri and Padmanaban (1976)104 defined the term non-
tractorized farms as those farms where bullock technology was used for
operations.
Rao (1978)105 reported that the existence of holdings with fragments
distributed in many places rendered tractor farming unprofitable.
Aphiphan Pookpakdi (1992)106 Observe that Green Revolution made a
notable contribution to raising the production of rice and wheat by small-scale
farmers, particularly in Asia and the Pacific. The high-yielding varieties
(HYVs) of rice released in the 1960s increased the productivity of rice by about
70% and of wheat by 150%. The HYVs are responsive to very high
applications of fertilizer, and are efficient producers under intensive
management conditions (RAPA 1989).
One indirect effect of the Green Revolution was to reduce the output of
protein-rich grains and pulses which contributed greatly to ensuring a balanced
diet for the rural poor (FAO 1991b). These crops were no longer competitive
in terms of financial returns per hectare. The Green Revolution has also raised
103 N.S.P. Rebello. G.S.Chndrashekar, H.C.Shankaramurthy, K.S.Hiremath, “The impact of the
increase in the prices of inputs on the profitability and production o sugarcane and paddy in Mandy Districts of Karnataka, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.223, 1976.
104 Namboodri, N.V. and Padmanathan K., “Farm tractorization – A benefit –cost analysis”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.199, 1976.
105 Rao, “Rate of growth of power irrigation in Madras Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 33(1), P.209-217, 1978.
106 Aphiphan Pookpakdi (1992) Sustainable Agriculture for Small-Scale Farmers: A Farming Systems Perspective Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Kasetsart University Bangkok 10900, Thailand, 1992-12-01.
66
several sustainability issues. Although the upward trend in yield has been
maintained over the past three decades, the rate of increase is slackening,
largely because of deteriorating soil fertility and the high incidence of pests and
diseases associated with monoculture. The social impact of the Green
Revolution has also sometimes been harmful. Since HYVS require high inputs
such as fertilizer, irrigation water and pesticides, as well as intensive
management, large landowners with plenty of capital were the main
beneficiaries. Attracted by the high returns which the new seeds made
possible, landowners tended to begin farming their land directly, sometimes
exacerbating the problems of landlessness and rural poverty.
Other types of technology which give high yields but have a negative
impact on the environment, such as heavy applications of pesticides,
monoculture, and extension of irrigation systems, have already been discussed.
We must question how long our natural resources can meet the need for an
increased output of agricultural commodities, before drastic degradation of the
resource occurs and productivity falls even below its present levels.
Bob Carlisle and Jonathan Wadsworth (2005)107 state that
Agricultural technology can affect smallholder income, labour opportunities for
the poor, food prices, environmental sustainability, and linkages with the rest of
the rural economy:
107 Bob Carlisle and Jonathan Wadsworth (2005), Central Research Department for International
Development (DFID) in collaboration with Rob Tripp of ODI, London.
67
• Agricultural technology has been a primary factor contributing to
increases in farm productivity in developing countries over the past half-
century. Although there is still widespread food insecurity, the situation
without current technology development would have been
unimaginable.
• New technology can provide additional rural employment, but there are
always countervailing pressures to reduce labour input and lower its
costs.
• Food prices are demonstrably lower because of technology, but the
distribution of benefits between consumers and producers depends on
the nature of the local economy and trade patterns.
The adoption of technology requires adequate incentives for producers.
Investments in labour or cash will not be made unless there are adequate
returns. One of the most important supporting factors is the adequacy of
markets for outputs and inputs.
Although there is much academic debate regarding the nature and
impact of technological change, the important issues for development
assistance agencies are related to other uncertainties. These include:
• identifying the most effective planning procedures for directing
agricultural technology to poverty reduction;
• establishing the role of agriculture in national development strategies;
• deciding the degree to which agricultural investments are appropriate for
marginal areas;
68
• identifying the correct mix of public, private and civil society support to
agricultural technology generation;
• and identifying the types of technology that warrant support.
Because agricultural technology addresses multiple, and at times
conflicting, objectives, there is a need for careful planning. But there is a trade-
off between investment in micro-level technology screening, on the one hand,
and support to basic institutional capacities and political responsiveness, on the
other. The rhetoric of technological revolutions should be eschewed in favour
of consistent attention to building technological capacity in response to changes
in the rural economy. One of the most difficult choices is that facing the
appropriate level of (agricultural) support for poverty reduction in marginal
areas. An important challenge is marshalling sufficient (and coherent) support
for public research and extension in the face of severe constraints in
development budgets. Private sector technology generation (and technology
delivery) is of growing relevance to poverty reduction strategies, but it is
probably unreasonable to place high expectations on vastly expanded formal
public-private partnerships. Support to NGOs in agricultural technology
generation should focus on their role in building local institutions and
capacities; a strong rural civil society is essential for articulating technology
demand.
There are no easy rules for guiding investments in particular types of
technology, and pragmatic, case-by-case analysis and follow-up is required.
69
Much current rhetoric (e.g. related to biotechnology or low external input
agriculture) does little to promote responsible policies.
Among the most important policy challenges related to support for agricultural
technology are:
• the identification of an effective investment portfolio of technologies;
• structuring interchange among producers, consumers, public institutes
(national and international), civil society and the private sector to elicit
effective pro-poor demand;
• structuring assistance to recognise the long-term, incremental nature of
technology generation;
• locating technology policies in a wider policy arena; and
• setting and articulating clear policy goals that relate technology
generation to food price, labour, trade, and regional development.
There are a number of implications for the way that donor assistance to
agricultural technology is structured. The agencies need to develop in-house
capacity to monitor the processes and outcomes of agricultural technology
generation. This implies a commitment to developing institutional memory and
to coordinating central syntheses and guidance with country-level experience.
Policies in support of agricultural technology generation should place strong
emphasis on local institution building and should see that agriculture is
addressed in a coherent fashion in poverty planning. An understanding of the
multiple impacts and second-order effects of technology should inform the
70
policy process. Finally, donor agencies need to increase their collaboration and
co-ordination in support of technology generation.
Kumar (2008)108 pointed out that the globalization agreement on
Agriculture provides for new opportunities for increased international trade in
Agriculture, Globalization was felt that the disciplines of GATT, which
traditionally focused only on import access problems, should be extended to
measure affecting trade is agriculture, including domestic agricultural policies
and the subsidization of agricultural exports. It was felt necessary to reform
agricultural policies in order to achieve trade liberalization in agriculture. The
idea was to progressively reduce trade distorting subsidies, improve import
access and curb export subsidies in agriculture. Under the agreement on
Agriculture the main countries would have to reduce drastically subsidies
granted to the farm sector.
Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008)109 states that agriculture is the
largest and most important sector of the Indian economy. But this sector
remains most backward and about 40 per cent of rural population remain below
the poverty line. Much of the rural population does not have access to common
infrastructure like connectivity, electricity, health and safe drinking water.
Complex characteristics of rural India include inaccessible terrain and
dispersed villages, sub optimal utilization of natural resources, lack of
108 Dr. S. Kumar (2008), Indian Agriculture and the Globalization, Agriculture under Globalization,
Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.10. 109 Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008), Agriculture and Globalization, Agriculture under
Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.55.
71
extension of adequate privileges are detrimental to the socio-economic
environment in India. Imbalance in socio-economic development and rural
urban divide can be removed if the infrastructure in rural areas is made
adequate, qualitative and a growth oriented business environment is created.
This in turn can generate employment opportunities.
Raja Mohammed (2009)110 views that Reduction and especially,
elimination of agrochemical require major changes in management to assure
adequate plant nutrients and to control crop pests. As it was done a few
decades ago, alternative sources of nutrients to maintain soil fertility include
manures. Sewage sludge and other organic wastes, and legumes in cropping
sequences. Rotation benefits are due to biologically fixed nitrogen and from
the interruption of weed, disease and insect cycles. A livestock enterprise may
be integrated with grain cropping to provide animal manures and to utilize
better the forages produced. Maximum benefits of pasture integration can be
realized when livestock, crops, animals and other farm resources are assembled
in mixed and rotational designs to optimize production efficiency, nutrient
cycling and crop protection.
Raja Mohammed (2010)111 stated that in India is making a substantial
surge in the GDP growth. We are contemplating a 10 per cent + increase with
euphoria. Among the major sectors, namely, agriculture, manufacturing and
110 Raja Mohammed (2009), Modern Agriculture and Sustainable Farming, Peninsular Economist,
Vol. XXI, No. 1, Pp.234-235. 111 Raja Mohammed (2010) Lack of Technology and Awareness, Southern Economist, Vol. 48, No.
24, April 15, 2010, Pp. 5-6.
72
services. The main GDP growth is due to manufacturing and services. In spite
of the meagre 2.1 per cent growth in agriculture, we are still able to achieve a
substantial increase in GDP largely because of manufacturing and services.
Apart from GDP growth, a populous nation like India which constitutes
about 1/6th of the human race – has to think seriously about food security for its
future. The food habits are also changing fast. In the past, the priority was to
feed million of poor people at least one square meal a day. Today, the
priorities are changing. More affluence, resulting out of the GDP growth, has
paved the way for more successful people to look for variety and quantum,
which has in turn increased the demand for supply of food.
We have to educate people to develop multiple skills in using
agricultural equipment. This will also help the work force to get better pay and
hence result in prosperity. Unfortunately from agriculture to manufacturing,
we have too many specialists in India and multi-skills are lacking.
In the field of dairying the first revolution in the 60’s has ensured the
survival of several millions of people. Today India stands ahead of any other
country producing 91 million tonnes of milk but productivity fares much below
any other country of repute. 5 million animals in France produce 24 million
tonnes of milk per annum and India produces 91 million tonnes with 70 million
animals. Not that we have to match France or Germany, but better productivity
is definitely possible with the existing setup by educating farmers, using better
73
tools and creating awareness of modernization and mechanization of even
small farms.
Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010)112 has points out that the improved strains of
seeds are essential for increasing agricultural production. Unless the farmer
has good seeds of suitable varieties, he cannot get the best out of other inputs,
such as irrigation, fertilizers, insecticides and machinery. With HYV seeds, it
becomes possible for him to take to intensive agriculture because of the
resultant high yield and good economic returns. When one seeds in retrospect,
it becomes clear that much of the stagnation that prevailed in India agriculture
till the mid – 1960’s could have been explained in terms of the availability of
poor and low-yielding variety seeds.
112 Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010), The Indian Economy, Environment and Policy, Sultan Chand and Sons,
Educational Publishers, New Delhi, Chap. 13, p.312.