CHANGES I N HARVESTING-THRESHING LABOR ARRANGEMENTS I N NUEVA E C I J A

LEONARDA 2. EBRON

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF THE P H I L I P P I N E S AT LOS BAnOS

I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE ( R u r a l S o c i o l o g y )

June 1984

The t h e s i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o , e n t i t l e d "CHANGES I N

prepared and submi t t ed by LEONARDA Z. EBRON i n p a r t i a l

f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e requ i rements f o r t h e d e g r e e of Master of

Sc ience (Rura l Soc io logy) is hereby accep ted .

GiU! hcfq BART DUFF

[%p&&$& URA T. D PO ITARIO

Member, Guidance Committee Member, Guidance Commit t e e

s / a r /N Date s i g n e d

I

GELIA T. CASTILLO Adviser and Chairman

Guidance Commit t e e

Date s i g n e d

Accepted a s p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e requ i rements f o r

t h e degree o f Master of Sc ience (Rura l Soc io logy)

A- CL' DOLORES A. RAMIRE

Dean, Graduate School U n i v e r s i t y o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s

a t Lo8 Baiios

P 44- /nrr ug Date s i g n e d

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The a u t h o r i s a n a t i v e of Los Banos, Laguna where she:

- was born t o Rufino Ebron and Dolores Zaba l ;

- had h e r e lementa ry e d u c a t i o n a t t h e Los Banos C e n t r a l

School ;

- f i n i s h e d secondary school a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of t h e

P h i l i p p i n e s Rural High School under a s c h o l a r s h i p

g r a n t from t h e Los Banos Rura l Bank f o r f o u r y e a r s ;

- took h e r b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e from t h e U n i v e r s i t y of t h e

P h i l i p p i n e s Col lege of A g r i c u l t u r e where s h e was a

r e c i p i e n t of an undergradua te f e l l o w s h i p f o r t h r e e

semes te r s and t h e O.T. Kang Scholarship-Study Grant;

- took h e r m a s t e r s degree i n Rural Sociology under a n

a s s i s t a n t s h i p from t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R ice Research

I n s t i t u t e ;

- i s working a s a r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t i n t h e Economics

S e c t i o n of t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineer ing Department

of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o D r . Gel ia T.

Cas t i l l o , a d v i s e r and chairman of t h e guidance commit t e e ,

f i r s t of a l l f o r h e l p i n g shape t h e r e s e a r c h problem. She i s

a l s o a p p r e c i a t e d f o r h e r comments and s u g g e s t i o n s on t h e

manuscr ip t and f o r h e r p a t i e n c e and c o n s t a n t encouragement f o r

t h e a u t h o r t o f i n i s h e v e r y t h i n g .

I am v e r y g r a t e f u l t o M r . Bar t Duff , member of t h e

guidance commit t e e and my d i r e c t work s u p e r v i s o r , f o r h i s

k indness and u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n g i v i n g me extended f r e e t ime t o

d e v o t e t o t h i s t h e s i s work. S i n c e r e thanks t o D r . Pura T.

D e p o s i t a r i o , member of t h e guidance commit t e e , f o r h e r

comments and s u g g e s t i o n s and whose accommodating a t t i tude was

a n encouragement.

I thank t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e f o r

p r o v i d i n g t h e a s s i s t a n t s h i p f o r g r a d u a t e work and a l l

f i n a n c i a l and l o g i s t i c suppor t f o r t h i s t h e s i s .

S p e c i a l thanks a r e due t o t h e fo l lowing : D r . Zenaida

Toquero f o r h e r comments and s u g g e s t i o n s on t h e f i r s t d r a f t of

t h i s manuscr ip t ; my s i s t e r , Vicky, who ~ r o v i d e d h e l p i n

e d i t i n g and t a b u l a t i o n work; Ce ly , Rey, Agie and Manny

. ,who provided a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e s u r v e y p o r t i o n of t h i s work;

t h e two hundred fa rmers and h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s who p rov ided

t h e needed d a t a ; t o Hedda who h e l p e d t y p e t h e f i r s t d r a f t of

t h i s paper and t o L idz whose d e d i c a t e d work and t y p i n g

e x p e r t i s e pu t t h i s work i n p r i n t e d form i n due t ime .

Thanks t o F l e u r who had been a c l a s s m a t e , f r i e n d , work

,and p r a y e r p a r t n e r ; and t o t h e s e f r i e n d s f o r t h e i r moral and

p raye r s u p p o r t : L i n a , Belen , Zeny, C e l l i e , Ate Merle , Emma,

E l l a , E l l e n and Te-Ann.

My d e e p e s t g r a t i t u d e t o my f a m i l y who had been v e r y

s u p p o r t i v e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e g r a d u a t e s t u d y .

F i n a l l y , I acknowledge t h a t t h i s work would n o t have been

.poss ib le were i t no t f o r God, t h e s o u r c e of a l l wisdom and

u n d e r s t a n d i n g and e v e r y t h i n g .

CHAPTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

Sta tement of t h e Problem

O b j e c t i v e s of t h e Study

- Importance of t h e Study

Conceptual Framework

I I REV1 EW OF LITERATURE

I1 I METHODOLOGY

The Loca le

The Sample and Sampling Design

Data C o l l e c t i o n

L i m i t a t i o n of t h e Study

I V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

D e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Study Area

The I r r i g a t e d S i t e s

The Rainfed S i t e s

A Survey of E x i s t i n g Harves t ing- Thresh ing Arrangements

D e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Harves t ing- Thresh ing Arrangements

An E v a l u a t i o n of t h e P r e s e n t Arrangements

Reasons f o r c h o i c e of a n arrangement

CHAPTER

Advantages of s p e c i f i c a r r a n g e m e n t

Problems by s p e c i f i c a r r a n g e m e n t

Compara t ive c o s t s by a r r a n g e m e n t

Changes d e s i r e d by a r r a n g e m e n t

Dynamics of Labor A l l o c a t i o n and O r g a n i z a t i o n

Labor A l l o c a t i o n

D i s t r i b u t i o n of w o r k e r s

Source of l a b o r

Reasons f o r h i r i n g l a b o r

P r e f e r e n c e f o r a v a i l a b l e f a m i l y l a b o r

F a r m e r ' s a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g

Labor O r g a n i z a t i o n

.De te rmina t ion of normal r a t e s

F a c t o r s t h a t c a n a l t e r normal r a t e s of payment

Methods of c o n t a c t i n g w o r k e r s

Methods of o b t a i n i n g w o r k e r s

~ n f o A a t i o n s o u r c e s

A d a p t a t i o n t o Problem S i t u a t i o n s

Farmer o p e r a t o r s ' p roblems a n d s o l u t i o n s

CHAPTER - PAGE

Workers ' p roblems and s o l u t i o n o r a d a p t a t i o n 119

EEEec ts of Techno log ica 1 , I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Demographic Changes on H a r v e s t i n g - T h r e s h i n g Arrangements

Observed Developments i n H a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s

Fa rmer s ' p e r c e p t i o n

Workers ' p e r c e p t i o n

Changes i n Income f rom H a r v e s t i n g and T h r e s h i n g

Ef E e c t s of Some T e c h n o l o g i c a l , I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Demographic Changes on ~ a r v e s t i n g - T h r e s h i n g Arrangements

High y i e l d i n g r i c e

Smal l m e c h a n i c a l t h r e s h e r s

I r r i g a t i o n

I n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d l e s s n e s s

Land r e f o n n

Harves t i n g - T h r e s h i n g Arrangements i n t h e F u t u r e

Changes Expec t ed i n t h e F u t u r e

Changes worke r s e x p e c t

Changes f a r m e r s e x p e c t

v i i i

PAGE -

Changes D e s i r e d i n t h e F u t u r e 160

Changes d e s i r e d by w o r k e r s 160

Changes d e s i r e d by f a r m e r s 160

P o s s i b l e E f f e c t s of Reape r Use

Farmers ' o p i n i o n

Workers ' o p i n i o n

Soc io -psycho log ica 1 A s p e c t s of t h e Workers ' E x i s t e n c e

Jobs p r e f e r r e d by w o r k e r s

Harves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a n d o t h e r fa rm j o b s

Harves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a n d non-farm j o b s

Workers ' Assessment o f J o b s and Wages

S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e v e l of wages

Adequacy of h a r v e s t i n g j o b s

Workers ' a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e i r p r e s e n t cond i t i o n

The p r e s e n t compared w i t h f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e

The p r e s e n t compared w i t h f i v e y e a r s ahead

CHAPTER --

Populat ion, S o c i a l Organizat ion, I n s t i t u t i o n s , S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s , Technology and Harvesting- Threshing Arrangements : A Comprehensive View

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

VI LITERATURE CITED

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

D i s t r i b u t i o n of samples f o r s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . D i s t r i b u t i o n of types of w o r k e r s , s i x . . . . . . . . v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982

D i s t r i b u t i o n of households by o c c u p a t i o n a l g roups , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . Farm c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r s i x v i l l a g e s ,

. . . . . . . . . . Nueva E c i j a , 1979-1980

Harves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements e x i s t i n g . . . i n s i x v i l l a g e s of Nueva E c i j a , 1982

Reasons f o r c h o i c e of a r rangement , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . Advantages by h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangement , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 Problems w i t h s p e c i f i c h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangement , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a y 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 Average c o s t p e r hec t a r e f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g by type of a r rangement , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . .

9a Cost components of t h e s i x h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982

10 Changes i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n of workers d e s i r e d by h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangement , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . .

Changes i n t h e r a t e and mode o f payment by h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t , 100 . . . . . . . . f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982

Changes i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w o r k e r s by t y p e , a g e and s e x , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1 9 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes i n t h e s o u r c e o f l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s , 1 0 0 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . Reasons f o r h i r i n g l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmers ' p r e f e r e n c e t o u s e o n l y f a m i l y l a b o r i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Ec i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . A p r o f i l e of t h e h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r f o r a 0.5 ha . i r r i g a t e d f a r m , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A p r o f i l e of t h e h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r f o r a 2.0 h a . r a i n f e d f a rm, Guimba, 1982 . . . Farmers ' a c t i v i t i e s w h i l e h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g a r e done on t h e i r f i e l d s ,

, . . . . . . 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a 1982

P a s t and p r e s e n t means o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e normal r a t e s i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F a c t o r s t h a t can a l t e r t h e r a t e s o f payment f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g ,

. . . . . s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982

Method o f c o n t a c t f o r worke r s i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . .

TABLE PAGE

P a s t and p r e s e n t methods of o b t a i n i n g workers f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , . . . . . . 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva ~ c i j a , 1982 106

Sources of i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y and performance of w o r k e r s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Farmers ' method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of e x c e s s w o r k e r s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva ~ c i j a , 1 9 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of e x c e s s . . . workers , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 112

Method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of l a c k of . . . workers , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 114

Method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of r e l a t i v e s a s k i n g f o r h a r v e s t i n g work, 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g employment, 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of poor performance of workers , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

S o l u t i o n s and a d a p t a t i o n t o some problems, 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . 123

Favorab le and unfavorab le changes obse rved . . . . . . by 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a y 1982 127

Favorab le and unfavorab le changes obse rved . . . . . . by 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva Eci j a y 1982 130

Changes i n income from h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g j o b s , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1 9 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

:34 E f f e c t s of modern v a r i e t i e s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

35 E f f e c t s of modern v a r i e t i e s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E c i j a , 1982 138

:36 E f f e c t s of s m a l l t h r e s h e r u s e on ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . 141

3 7 E f f e c t s of s m a l l t h r e s h e r use on ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s and a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva Eci j a ,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 143

:3 8 E f f e c t s of i r r i g a t i o n on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 54 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

:3 9 E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and . l a n d l e s s n e s s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

arrangemen~ts , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva Eci j a , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 148

140 E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . 150

41 E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g l a n d l e s s n e s s on ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . 151

42 E f f e c t s of l and reform on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3

43 Changes i n ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements t h a t 100 workers expec t i n t h e f u t u r e , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . 155

TA RLE --

Changes i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements t h a t 100 fa rmers e x p e c t i n

. . . . . . . . t h e f u t u r e , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 158

Changes d e s i r e d i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982 161

Changes d e s i r e d i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Farmers ' o p i n i o n on t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of r e a p e r use 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Workers ' o p i n i o n on t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of r e a p e r u s e , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

P r e f e r e n c e f o r h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g o r o t h e r farm j o b s , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

P r e f e r e n c e f o r h a r v e s t i n g o v e r non-farm j o b s , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . 173

Workers ' s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e v e l of wages or shares in kind, 100 workers, Nueva E c i j a , 1 9 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Workers ' o p i n i o n on t h e adequacy of h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g j o b s , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Reasons why workers c o n s i d e r themselves b e t t e r today than f i v e y e a r s a g o , 100 . . . . . . . . workers , Nueya E c i j a , 1982 183

Reasons why workers c o n s i d e r themselves worse today than f i v e y e a r s a g o , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 . . . . . . . . 185

TABLE PAGE -

5 5 Workers ' perception of the ir condition in the next f i v e years, 100 workers, Nueva Eci ja , 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

LIST OF FIGURES

PI GURE --

Map of Nueva E c i j a p rov ince showing t h e sample a r e a s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A map of Cabanatuan C i t y showing r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of t h e sample v i 1 l a g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A map of t h e v i l l a g e of San I s i d r o , Cabanatuan C i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A map of t h e v i l l a g e of Lagare , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cabana tuan C i t y

A map of t h e v i l l a g e of Caalibangbangan, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cabana tuan C i t y

A map of Guimba showing r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of t h e sample v i l l a g e s . . . . . . . . . . . A map of t h e v i l l a g e of Galvan, Guimba . . . A map of t h e v i l l a g e of San Andres , h i m b a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . A map of t h e v i l l a g e of Bunol, Guimba

D i s t r i b u t i o n of households by o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes i n t h e composi t ion of l a b o r i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , i r r i g a t e d v i 1 l a g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes i n t h e composi t ion of l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x v i i

ABSTRACT

EBRON, LEONARDA Z . , U n i v e r s i t y of t h e p h i l i p p i n e s a t Los

Banos, June , 1984. Changes i n ~ a r v e s t i n g - T h r e s h i n g Labor

Arrangements i n Nueva E c i j a . Major P r o f e s s o r : D r . Gel ia T.

C a s t i l l o .

The pr imary o b j e c t i v e of t h i s s t u d y was t o d e s c r i b e t h e

m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n r i c e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements

brought about by changes i n p r o d u c t i o n t e c h n o l o g i e s ,

p o p u l a t i o n , government programs and s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s . I t was

conducted i n s i x v i l l a g e s of Cabanatuan C i t y and Guimba , Nueva

E c i j a . One hundred fa rmers and one hundred h a r v e s t e r -

t h r e s h e r s composed t h e sample.

S i x t y p e s of e x i s t i n g arrangements were i d e n t i f i e d . I n

t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , t h e s h i f t from manual b e a t i n g t o s m a l l

t h r e s h e r use has been complete w h i l e i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s ,

a m a j o r i t y s t i l l u s e t h e l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s . Exchange

l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g has become r a r e , r e p l a c e d e i t h e r by d a i l y

wages o r payment of s h a r e s i n k ind . O f t e n , f a rmers had no

c h o i c e among sys tems. High and i r r e g u l a r wages, l a c k of

workers a t peak t imes o r c o n t r o l of t h e same were problems

r e p o r t e d .

The v i s i b l e changes i n ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements

i n c l u d e d : i n c r e a s e d l a b o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n of women and

xv i i i

c h i l d r e n , d e c l i n e i n t h e number of workers from o u t s i d e t h e

v i l l a g e and more f r e q u e n t v i l l a g e meet ings t o s e t t l e s h a r i n g

r a t e s o r wages.

Changes i n t echno logy , i n s t i t u t i o n s and demography

a f f e c t e d fa rmers and workers d i f f e r e n t l y . High y i e l d s from

modern v a r i e t i e s i n c r e a s e d t h e c o s t of o p e r a t i o n s and incomes

of workers. Small t h r e s h e r s f a c i l i t a t e d f a s t e r , more

convenient and l e s s expens ive o p e r a t i o n s . There was d i v i d e d

o p i n i o n among workers r e g a r d i n g t h r e s h e r e f f e c t s on t h e i r

incomes. I r r i g a t i o n brought more h a r v e s t i n g jobs and

n e c e s s i t a t e d t h a t o p e r a t i o n s be done more q u i c k l y . I n c r e a s i n g

p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d l e s s n e s s e f f e c t e d f a s t e r t h r e s h i n g , reduced

incomes and cheaper l a b o r . Land reform gave fa rmers more

independence i n d e c i d i n g when t o h a r v e s t , whom t o h i r e o r

which method t o use .

A d e c r e a s e i n s h a r i n g r a t e s , i n c r e a s e i n t h r e s h e r f e e s

and cash wages, a d o p t i o n of o t h e r machines o r a d d i t i o n a l

t h r e s h e r s and cash payment f o r bo th o p e r a t i o n s a r e expec ted t o

happen and b e n e f i t farmers and machine owners more t h a n t h e

workers. Workers d e s i r e d i n c r e a s e d o r ma in ta ined r a t e s o r

wages and more t h r e s h e r s i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s w h i l e f a rmers

wanted lower r a t e s and wages and cash payment f o r both

o p e r a t i o n s .

Workers and fa rmers f e a r t h a t r e a p e r u s e would r e s u l t t o

dec reased incomes, l o s s of j o b s , hunger , p o v e r t y ,

o u t m i g r a t i o n , d i s c o n t e n t o r d i s o r d e r .

Workers p r e f e r r e d h a r v e s t i n g jobs t o o t h e r farm o r

non-farm jobs . They a r e s a t i s f i e d wi th t h e p r e s e n t l e v e l s of

wages and s u f f i c i e n c y of h a r v e s t i n g jobs .

There was d i v i d e d o p i n i o n whether workers a r e b e t t e r o r

worse today than f i v e y e a r s ago. Half of t h e workers a r e

anxious about t h e i r f u t u r e .

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

I n t h e p a s t f i f t e e n y e a r s , P h i l i p p i n e a g r i c u l t u r e h a s

undergone r a p i d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a s a consequence of s e v e r a l

i n t e r a c t i n g f a c t o r s . The b a s i c r o l e i n t h i s r e v o l u t i o n i s t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n of modern v a r i e t i e s of r i c e developed by t h e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e . A l o t of c r e d i t i n

t h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n goes t o t h e a c c e l e r a t e d r i c e p r o d u c t i o n

program c a l l e d Masagana 99 launched i n 1973. I t is a n

i n s t i t u t i o n a l l i n k a g e program which b rough t r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s ,

modern i n p u t s , c r e d i t and c r o p management and s u p e r v i s i o n t o

f a rmers ' f i e l d s .

The Asian Development Bank recommended t h a t

i n s t i t u t i o n s be r e a l i g n e d w i t h t h e new techno logy a v a i l a b l e o r

t h a t new ones be c r e a t e d t o f a c i l i t a t e i n c r e a s e s i n employment

o p p o r t u n i t i e s and reduce r u r a l p o v e r t y . I n l i n e w i t h t h i s

he Asian Development Bank, Rura l As ia : Chal l enge and O p p o r t u n i t y , F e d e r a l P u b l i c a t i o n s , S i n g a p o r e , 1977, pp. 3-6. Th i s is p a r a l l e l t o A. Mosher ' s concept of t h e e s s e n t i a l s and a c c e l e r a t o r s of a g r i c u l t u r a l development. See A. Mosher, G e t t i n g A g r i c u l t u r e Moving: E s s e n t i a l s f o r Development and Modern iza t ion , The A g r i c u l t u r a l Development Counc i l , F. P r a e g e r , I n c . , S i n g a p o r e , 1966.

recommendation, s u p p o r t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s were developed and

improved whi le e f f o r t s a t technology development con t inued .

Iin i n s t i t u t i o n where most r a d i c a l changes have been e f f e c t e d

s t h a t which p e r t a i n s t o land ownership and t e n u r e . P res -

i d e n t i a l Decree No. 27 a b o l i s h e d s h a r e tenancy and t r a n s f e r r e d

rnuch of t h e economic r e t u r n s t o land t o t h e s h a r e t e n a n t s who

were conver ted t o l e a s e h o l d e r s and a m o r t i z i n g owners.

I r r i g a t i o n systems have been expanded and e x i s t i n g ones

r e h a b i l i t a t e d t o p rov ide t h e p h y s i c a l environment conducive

l:o h igh p r o d u c t i v i t y . C r e d i t t h a t a f f o r d e d fa rmers t o

purchase s u p p l i e s and equipment and pay e s s e n t i a l s e r v i c e s

were g r a n t e d on a n o n - c o l l a t e r a l b a s i s . Ex tens ion a c t i v i t i e s

t h a t educa ted fa rmers on t h e new technology were s t r e n g t h e n e d

w i t h t h e h i r i n g of a d d i t i o n a l farm t e c h n o l o g i s t s and a d o p t i o n

of o t h e r mass communication methods l i k e r a d i o and t h e p r i n t e d

r ledia . The market support a s p e c t was r e f l e c t e d i n t h e

government p o l i c i e s of s u b s i d i z i n g i n p u t p r i c e s and s u p p o r t i n g

o r r e g u l a t i n g o u t p u t p r i c e s . V i l l a g e a s s o c i a t i o n s such a s t h e

Samahang Nayon, i r r i g a t i o n s o c i e t i e s and c o o p e r a t i v e s have

been o rgan ized t o f a c i l i t a t e d e l i v e r y of r u r a l s e r v i c e s and

j-mplementation of o t h e r a g r i c u l t u r a l development programs.

Farm mechan iza t ion was pursued w i t h i n t e r e s t through t h e

e x t e n s i o n of c r e d i t and promotion of l o c a l p r o d u c t i o n .

Simultaneous w i t h t e c h n o l o g i c a l p r o g r e s s 2 t a k i n g p l a c e

i n a g r i c u l t u r e is t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e man t o l and r a t i o . Farm

p o p u l a t i o n con t inued t o i n c r e a s e a t a f a s t r a t e w h i l e

c u l t i v a t e d a r e a f o r r i c e has n o t i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i n c e

1960. ' Nei the r has t h e r e been s u b s t a n t i a l a b s o r p t i o n of

l abor i n t o t h e i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r s o t h a t d e s p i t e e f f o r t s a t

i n c r e a s i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y , t h e l and t o l a b o r r a t i o c o n t i n u e s t o

d e c r e a s e . This c o n j u n c t i o n of h igh growth of p o p u l a t i o n and

l i m i t e d a b s o r p t i v e c a p a c i t y of t h e n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r s

has caused t h e va lue of l a b o r t o d e c l i n e much more r a p i d l y

r e l a t i v e t o t h a t of t h e v a l u e of l and .

As f a r a s o u t p u t growth i s concerned, t h e impact of t h e

new r i c e technology has been v e r y i m p r e s s i v e . About 85% of

t h e change i n paddy o u t p u t between 1965-69 and 1975-79 has

been a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e change i n y i e l d . 4

2 ~ o d a r o d e f i n e s t h e term a s " t h e i n c r e a s e d a p p l i c a t i o n of new s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i n t h e form of i n v e n t i o n s and i n n o v a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o c a p i t a l , bo th p h y s i c a l and human." Michael Todaro , Economic Development i n t h e Th i rd World , Longman, I n c . , New York, 1981, p. 551.

3 ~ . Cr isos tomo, W. Meyers, T. P a r i s , J r . , B. Duff and R. Barker , "The New Rice Technology and Labor Absorp t ion i n P h i l i p p i n e A g r i c u l t u r e " , The Malayan Economic Review, Vol . X V I , No. 2 , Oct . 1971, p. 128.

4 ~ . P a l a c p a c , World Rice S t a t i s t i c s , The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e , Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, Los Banos , Laguna , 1982, p. 11 7.

The r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n r i c e p r o d u c t i o n i s however, o n l y

one a s p e c t of t h e b reak th rough i n r i c e p roduc t ion . Rapid and

widespread q u a l i t a t i v e changes i n both p r o d u c t i o n and

non-productive a c t i v i t i e s were t r i g g e r e d by t h e sp read of

modern v a r i e t i e s and a s s o c i a t e d t e c h n o l o g i e s . They have a l s o

a f f e c t e d v i l l a g e l e v e l s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and p r o d u c t i o n

o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c l u d i n g household l e v e l d e c i s i o n s and c r e a t e d a

d i f f e r e n t l e v e l of e x p e c t a t i o n i n r u r a l s o c i e t y . As Brown

d e s c r i b e d i t , t h e "new seeds a r e t o t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l

r e v o l u t i o n i n t h e poor c o u n t r i e s , w h i l e t h e s t eam e n g i n e was

t o t h e I n d u s t r i a l Revo lu t ion i n Europe". 5

Cas t i l l o has i n i t i a l l y c l a s s i f i e d t h e broad r a n g e of

i n s t i t u t i o n a l phenomena i n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r i n t o f o u r

groups : 6

1. Pre -des igned , p lanned o r "c rea ted" i n s t i t u t i o n a l

innovations such as the Masagana 99 program and the

Samahang Nayon.

5 ~ . Brown, Seeds of change : The Green Revo lu t ion and Development i n t h e 1970s , P r a e g e r P u b l i s h e r s , New York, 1970.

6 ~ . T. C a s t i l l o , "How p a r t i c i p a t o r y i n P a r t i c i p a t o r y Development?: A Review of t h e P h i l i p p i n e Exper ience ." P h i l i p p i n e I n s t i t u t e f o r Development S t u d i e s . 1983. p . 8 .

2 . I n s t i t u t i o n a l a d j u s t m e n t s t h a t a r e t h e r e s p o n s e s t o

the p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l

changes i n t h e environment.

3. I n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s a n d / o r accommodations

between and among t h e "c rea ted" i n s t i t u t i o n s and

between t h e o l d and new ways and between t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l o r in fo rmal and l e g a l , fo rmal means.

4. I n s t i t u t i o n a l " leakages" t h a t stem from t h e

d e v i a t i o n s o r i m p e r f e c t i o n s i n t h e implementa t ion of

t h e d e s i g n and misconcep t ions o r e r r o r s i n

r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e of p r e s e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s t o be

t h e b a s i s f o r d e s i g n i n g new i n s t i t u t i o n s .

An i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r e a where t h e most prominent changes

have t aken p l a c e i s t h a t of l a b o r ar rangements i n a g r i c u l t u r a l

p roduc t ion . Th i s happened because i t i s i n l a b o r ar rangements

and c o n t r a c t s t h a t f a rmers can e x e r c i s e some d e g r e e of c h o i c e

compared t o t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s of p r o d u c t i o n which they do n o t

possess . Changes i n l a b o r ar rangements r e f l e c t a r e sponse

t o t h e f o r c e s caused by changes i n t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s of

p r o d u c t i o n namely, l a n d and c a p i t a l .

7 ~ . Anderson, V. Cordova, 6. Dozina, Jr . , W. James and J. Roumasset, "Exchange Labor and I t s Demise i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s " , A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i o n , Club S o l v i e n t o , Los Banos , Laguna , P h i l i p p i n e s , January 25-27, 1979.

Sta tement of t h e Problem

Although t h e new r i c e technology i s l a n d s a v i n g , i t u s e s

more l a b o r than t h e o l d methods of growing r i c e . I n Laguna,

f o r example, t h e i n c r e a s e i n l a b o r r equ i rement p e r h e c t a r e f o r

pre-harves t a c t i v i t i e s a l o n e i n c r e a s e d by about 52%. The

ve ry same labor-demanding p r a c t i c e s , however, s t i m u l a t e d t h e

demand f o r l abor - sav ing machines and implements such a s

t r a c t o r s , t i l l e r s and t h r e s h e r s . For example, s m a l l

mechanical t h r e s h e r s i n I l o i l o reduced l a b o r r equ i rements f o r

t h r e s h i n g from 31.4 mandays p e r h e c t a r e u s i n g t h e f e e t

t r e a d i n g method t o a s low a s 1.8 mandays .' For hand b e a t i n g

i n Laguna t h e d i sp lacement was from 20.8 t o 4.8 mandays. The

s e e d - f e r t i l i z e r technology and mechan iza t ion a r e two s e p a r a t e

i s s u e s b u t t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t farm mechan iza t ion i n many

8 ~ . Smith , V. Cordova, And R. H e r d t , "Trends i n Labor Absorp t ion and Earnings: The Case of Rice P r o d u c t i o n i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s " . Paper p repared f o r t h e 1981 Annual Meeting of t h e I n d i a n S o c i e t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, I R R I , Ag. Economics Dept. Paper No. 81-13.

'F. Juarez and B. Duff , "The Economic and I n s t i t u t i o n a l Impact of Mechanical Thresh ing i n I l o i l o and Laguna", The Consequences of Small Rice Farm Mechanizat ion P r o j e c t . Working Paper No. 1 , I R R I , Los Banos, Laguna, Oc tober , 1979.

a r e a s was boosted by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of HWs i s wide ly

a c c e p t e d . lo A t t h e same t ime t h a t t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s

were t a k i n g p l a c e i n a g r i c u l t u r e , s o were o t h e r f a c t o r s

a f f e c t i n g r u r a l s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n . A s a

r e s u l t of t h e changes i n technology and i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t was

not on ly t h e volume of employment f o r s p e c i f i c t a s k s and f o r

t h e whole p r o d u c t i o n sys tem t h a t changed. The whole p i c t u r e

of t h e r u r a l l a b o r market a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n - i t s s t r u c t u r e ,

composi t ion and o r g a n i z a t i o n - a l s o changed. A wide spect rum

of l a b o r ar rangements of d i f f e r e n t compensation and o b l i g a t i o n

terms evo lved .

Although c o n t r a c t u a l ar rangements a r e dominant i n most

p a r t s of r u r a l A s i a , t h e e x i s t e n c e of i m p l i c i t communal

ar rangements i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e of a g r i c u l t u r a l

p r o d u c t i o n . l1 Since "economic f a c t o r s a r e n o t a l m i g h t y i n

l o g . F. Johns ton and J. Cownie, "The S e e d - F e r t i l i z e r Revo lu t ion and Labor Force Absorp t ion" , The American Economic Review, September , 1969.

"A. Takahash i , " E x p l i c i t and I m p l i c i t Arrangements i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e A g r i c u l t u r e " , Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e ADC Seminar on S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i o n , Club S o l v i e n t o , Los Banos , Laguna , P h i l i p p i n e s , J a n u a r y 25-27, 1979.

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e demand f o r and s u p p l y

of h i r e d l a b o r i n r u r a l ~ s i a " , ' ~ t h e r e i s a need t o examine

t h e non-market and /o r t h e non-economic f a c t o r s . The s o c i a l

i n t r i c a c i e s a s s o c i a t e d wi th t h e l a b o r ar rangements t h a t have

been a l t e r e d o r modif ied need t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d a l s o .

Although i d e n t i f y i n g t h e key f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c e r t a i n

t y p e s of change i s a complex t a s k , t h e a n a l y t i c a l problem t h a t

remains is t o e s t a b l i s h how t h e changes i n technology h a s

a f f e c t e d t h e l a b o r ar rangements i n p roduc t ion .

What a r e t h e changes t a k i n g p l a c e i n terms of t h e t a s k s

of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g under t h e new technology of

growing r i c e ? What a r e t h e s o c i a l i n t r i c a c i e s invo lved i n

t h o s e ar rangements? How do fa rmers and farm l a b o r e r s p e r c e i v e

t h e changes and how do they a d a p t t o them? What a r e t h e i r

a t t i t u d e s toward t h e s e changes and what a r e t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s

among e x i s t i n g c h o i c e s ?

- - - -

12s. Hirashima, "Hired Labor i n Rural As ia : Problems and I s s u e s ," i n S. Hirashima (ed . 1. ired Labor i n Rural A s i a , I n s t i t u t e of Developing Economies, Tokyo, 1977, p . 2.

Obiect ives of t he Studv

The primary aim of t h i s s tudy i s t o document

modif icat ions i n r i c e harves t ing- threshing arrangements

brought about by changes i n populat ion, production

technologies , support s e rv ices and government programs.

S p e c i f i c a l l y , t he ob jec t ives a r e :

1. To descr ibe the changes i n the a l l o c a t i o n of farm

labor and labor arrangements i n ha rves t ing and

threshing .

2. To f ind out t he f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g choice of

arrangement given a number of poss ib l e arrangements.

3. To compare the cos t s of e x i s t i n g arrangements.

4. To determine the advantages and/or disadvantages of

the new arrangements over the o ld o r a l t e r n a t i v e

choices.

5. To a s ses s how the farmers and farm l abore r s adapt t o

the problems a s soc ia t ed with the e x i s t i n g

arrangements.

6. To f ind out how o t h e r developments i n the

a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r have a f f e c t e d the

harvest ing-threshing arrangements over the years .

7. To a s s e s s how fa rmers and farm l a b o r e r s f o r e s e e

f u t u r e developments o r changes i n h a r v e s t i n g -

t h r e s h i n g a r rangements .

8. To examine some of t h e s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f

t h e worker s ' e x i s t e n c e and how h e views h i s p r e s e n t

c o n d i t i o n .

Impor tance o f t h e S tudy

An on-going s t u d y e n t i t l e d , "The Consequences o f Small

R ice Farm Mechan iza t ion on P r o d u c t i o n , Incomes and Rura l

Employment i n S e l e c t e d C o u n t r i e s of Asia" is b e i n g funded by

t h e Uni ted S t a t e s Agency f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development. The

r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t which c o v e r s t h e 3 c o u n t r i e s o f I n d o n e s i a ,

T h a i l a n d and t h e P h i l i p p i n e s is a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e

A g r i c u l t u r a l Development Counci 1 and t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l

E n g i n e e r i n g Department of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R ice Research

I n s t i t u t e . One of t h e t h r e e main o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s p r o j e c t

is s t a t e d a s : 1 3

1 3 ~ h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l R ice Research I n s t i t u t e , The Consequences of Small R ice Farm Mechan iza t ion on P r o d u c t i o n , Incomes and Rura l Employment i n S e l e c t e d C o u n t r i e s o f Asia : A P r o j e c t P r o p o s a l , Los Banos , Laguna , F e b r u a r y , 1978.

"To develop a n improved u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e

t a s k s invo lved i n t h e d i f f e r e n t sys tems of r i c e

p r o d u c t i o n t o p rov ide g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e d e s i g n

of mechan iza t ion a p p r o p r i a t e f o r r i c e p roducers

a t d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s of development".

Although t h e su rveys and r e c o r d k e e p i n g a c t i v i t i e s t h a t were

under taken under t h e p r o j e c t covered broad a s p e c t s of r i c e

farming, t h e n a t u r e of t h e s o c i a l c o m p l e x i t i e s invo lved i n t h e

d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of r i c e f a rming was no t t a k e n i n d e t a i l i n

a s much a s t h e s t u d y i s more of a n economic r a t h e r than a

s o c i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . Also , t h e s t u d y gave emphasis on t h e

i s s u e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e mechan iza t ion of l a n d p r e p a r a t i o n . I t

i s hoped t h a t a more d e t a i l e d s t u d y of t h e t a s k s of h a r v e s t i n g

and t h r e s h i n g can p rov ide a supplementary c o n t r i b u t i o n i n

answer ing t h e s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e . Hence, t h i s s t u d y was

conducted.

One of t h e i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g mechan iza t ion i s t h e k i n d of

p o l i c y t h a t governments need t o t a k e t o a t t a i n t h e maximum

b e n e f i t s of mechan iza t ion w h i l e k e e p i n g t h e u n d e s i r a b l e

e f f e c t s t o a minimum. However, one of t h e r e a s o n s why

r e s e a r c h e r s have reached d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s and proposed

d i v e r s e views on t h e i s s u e i s t h a t r e s e a r c h on mechan iza t ion

a r e c a r r i e d o u t on a t l e a s t t h r e e s e p a r a t e a s p e c t s :

t e c h n i c a l , economic and s o c i o l o g i c a l . l4 Since t h i s s tudy i s

more soc io log ica1 than economic o r t e c h n i c a l , we could not

genera l ize conclusions. However, a s G. T. C a s t i l l o pu ts i t :

"In the absence of an e f f e c t i v e defense a g a i n s t

t h i s p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o gene ra l i ze beyond

l i m i t a t i o n s , t he most one could aim f o r i s t o

h i g h l i g h t t he complexi t ies which unde r l i e the

changes t h a t a r e remotely o r d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d

with the new r i c e technology. These complexi t ies

which c h a r a c t e r i z e the physico-socio-cul tural

environment of r i c e farming deserve t o be

h igh l igh t ed because broad, genera1 p o l i c i e s

seldom touch these micro l e v e l problems". 15

This r e sea rche r agrees with h e r and i t i s hoped t h a t t h e

f ind ings can provide some deeper i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e s o c i a l

complexi t ies of h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e sh ing systems and

I Arnon, Modernization of Agr i cu l tu re i n Developing Countr ies : Resources, P o t e n t i a l s and Problems, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. , New York, 1981.

1 5 ~ . T. C a s t i l l o , "Divers i ty i n Unity: The Soc i a l Component of Changes i n Rice Farming i n Asia Vi l lages" , i n Changes i n Rice armi in^ i n Se l ec t ed Areas of ~ s i a , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975, pp. 347.

organ iza t ion which i n t u r n , can provide some background

information when p o l i c i e s a r e framed.

Theo re t i ca l Framework

As formulated by Moore, every s o c i e t y o r s o c i a l system i s

predisposed t o change because of some s i g n i f i c a n t problems o r

s t r a i n s i nhe ren t i n t h a t s o c i e t y and f o r which the re i s no

o v e r a l l continuous so lu t ion . These problems inc lude demo-

graphic imbalances, perennia l resource s c a r c i t y s i t u a t i o n s and

c o n t r a s t i n g s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n s o r p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i a l

o rgan iza t ion wi th in t he s o c i e t y . l6 The o rgan iza t ion of such

s o c i a l sys tems involves the c r e a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n of norms

t o r e g u l a t e the major u n i t s of s o c i a l behaviour and organi-

z a t i o n , c r i t e r i a f o r r e g u l a t i n g the flow of resources between

such u n i t s , and sanc t ions t o ensure t h a t norms a r e upheld by

the members. The process of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s the

o rgan iza t ion of s o c i e t a l l y prescr ibed systems of d i f f e r e n t

16w. Moore, "A Reconsiderat ion of the Theories of Soc i a l Change", American Soc io logica l Review, Vol. XXV, No. 6 , December 1960.

behav io r o r i e n t e d t o t h e s o l u t i o n of c e r t a i n problems i n h e r e n t

i n a major a r e a o f s o c i a l l i f e . 17

Rural systems a r e s o c i a l sys tems made up of t h e s o c i a l

o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e p r o d u c t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s .

Some of i t s components a r e t h e s o i l , w a t e r , p l a n t s , farm

s t r u c t u r e s , money, l a b o r e r s , farmers and t h e i r f a m i l i e s , e t c .

The l i n k a g e of t h e systems i n c l u d e i n t e r p e r s o n a l and

i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s , p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , consumption,

exchange and community o b l i g a t i o n s . l8 Rural systems a r e

c o n t i n u a l l y a d j u s t i n g t o env i ronmenta l problems a r i s i n g w i t h i n

t h e sys tem and t h o s e caused by o u t s i d e f a c t o r s .

According t o t h e e q u i l i b r i u m t h e o r y of s o c i a l change,

m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s would r e s u l t when f o r c e s a r e

p r e s s e d upon a s o c i a l system. Changes i n bo th e x t e r n a l and

i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s demand some ad jus tment by i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e

p a r t of t h e sys tem t o cope up w i t h t h e new c o n d i t i o n s . This

i s when i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e s a r e made among a 1 t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s

o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s . Demographic and r e s o u r c e f a c t o r s a r e

17s. Eisendadt , " I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and Change". The American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, Vol. X X X I X , No. 2 , A p r i l 1964.

L Hewes, Rural Development: World F r o n t i e r , Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ames, Iowa. 1974. pp. 34-35.

i n t e r n a l t o t he system, while technology i s usua l ly an

ex t e rna l f a c t o r . Fos t e r even proposes the term "socio-

technologica l development" i n p l ace of t he term " technologica l

development" s i n c e development is much more than p l a i n

acceptance of m a t e r i a l o r t e chn ica l improvements. He

considers t he whole t h i n g a c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l and psychological

process because t he re i s a corresponding change i n t he

a t t i t u d e s , thoughts , va lues , b e l i e f s and behavior of those

people a f f e c t e d by the t echn ica l o r m a t e r i a l change. l9 " A l l

t echnologica l innovat ion leads t o some s o c i a l change and

d i s rup t ion" 20

''6. F o s t e r , T rad i t i ona l Cul tures and the Impact of Technological Change; Harper and Row Pub l i she r s , New York, 1962. pp. 2-3.

'OL. Brown, The Soc ia l Impact of t h e Green Revolution Carnegie Endowment f o r I n t e r n a t iona 1 Peace, January , 1971 , No. 581. p. 43.

CHAPTER I1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Changes

I n s t i t u t i o n s a r e organized systems of s o c i a l

r e l a t i o n s h i p s which embody c e r t a i n va lues and procedures and

meet c e r t a i n bas i c needs of t he soc i e ty . 21 l h e s e p a t t e r n s

of behavior through which s o c i a l c o n t r o l is exe r t ed a r e

complex and organized. Broadly de f ined , they a r e systems of

r u l e s which e s t a b l i s h gu ide l ines of i n t e r a c t i o n and

expec t a t i on among members of the soc i e ty . A s such, t h e r u l e s

can se rve t o f a c i l i t a t e coord ina t ion and coopera t ion among

members i n the use of resources . Cont rac t s , laws,

i n s t i t u t i o n s , e t h i c s and o rgan iza t ions , both vo luntary and

government a r e examples of i n s t i t u t i o n s because they a r e

systems of r u l e s t h a t provide gu ide l ines of i n t e r a c t i o n among

the members of a s o c i a l system. I n P h i l i p p i n e a g r i c u l t u r e ,

con t r ac t s o r arrangements which govern t he use of land and t h e

21 P. Horton and C. Hunt. Sociology. (5 th e d i t i o n ) . McGraw-Hill Kogakusha , Ltd . , Tokyo. 1980.

employment of l a b o r , sha re tenancy, t h e ' gama' system and farm

o rgan iza t ions a r e some of t h e most important i n s t i t u t i o n s . 22

Since c o n t r a c t s a r e examples of economic i n s t i t u t i o n s i n

the a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r , and the t h e o r i e s on i n s t i t u t i o n a l

changes can be app l i ed t o such emerging p a t t e r n s o r

i n s t i t u t i o n s such a s the "gama" system, t h e s h a r i n g system i n

l a r g e landholdings and the d e c l i n e of the b i g ' t i l y a d o r a s ' a s

a response t o i r r i g a t i o n and the new v a r i e t i e s , 2 3 the review

t h a t fol lows w i l l be r e l a t e d t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l change.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l change occurs a s demanded by the changes

i n the r e l a t i v e f a c t o r ~ r i c e s o r changes i n resource

endowments and income d i s t r i b u t i o n generated by t echn ica l

change. The supply of i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes i s generated by

the advances i n s c i ence and technology and the c o s t s of change

2 2 ~ . Rournasset, Economic Perspec t ives on I n s t i t u t i o n a l Change, In t roduc to ry remarks a t t he ADC Seminar on t h e Soc i a l Organizat ion of A g r i c u l t u r a l Product ion , Club So lv i en to , Los Banos , Laguna, January 25-27, 1979.

2 3 ~ . de la Torre , Contractual Arrangements i n Labor U t i l i z a t i o n : t he Case of Rice Farming i n Se l ec t ed Areas of t h e Ph i l i pp ines . Unpublished M. A. t h e s i s . UP School of Economics. August , 1979.

a r e reduced by advances i n t he s o c i a l s c i ence knowledge. 24

Costs , both f o r n e g o t i a t i o n and enforcement, a r e involved when

s o c i e t y wants t o maintain o r modify e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s o r

c r e a t e new ones. 2 5

There would be no o rgan iza t ion f o r i n s t i t u t i n g change

unless the gains expected exceed the c o s t s t o be e n t a i l e d .

According t o t he induced innovat ion hypothes i s of Hayad and

Ruttan, i n s t i t u t i o n a l innovat ions happen because i t is

p r o f i t a b l e f o r some i n d i v i d u a l s , groups o r s e c t o r s t o

undertake t he c o s t s . The e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements

will be d i s tu rbed by technologica l changes and market fo rces

t h a t w i l l c r e a t e more p r o f i t a b l e oppor tun i t i e s f o r t he

innovat ions. I n s t i t u t i o n a l change w i l l be v i a b l e only i f t he

b e n e f i t s t o s o c i e t y exceed t h e c o s t s . 2 6

24~. Binswanger and V. Rut t a n , Induced Innova t i o n : Technology, I n s t i t u t i o n and Development, The John Hopkins Univers i ty P r e s s , Bal t imore, 1978.

2 5 ~ . Hayami and M. Kikuchi, Asian V i l l age Economy a t the Crossroads : An Economic Approach t o I n s t i t u t i o n a l Change, Univers i ty of Tokyo P r e s s , Tokyo, 1981, p. 24 .

2 6 ~ . Hayami and V. Rut tan, A g r i c u l t u r a l Development: An I n t e r n a t i o n a l Pe r spec t ive , John Hopkins P r e s s , Baltimore. 1971.

Two o t h e r au tho r s developed q u i t e s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e s t o

t h a t of Hayami and Ruttan. Demsetz pos tu l a t ed t h a t only

i n s t i t u t i o n s where d i f f e r e n c e s between b e n e f i t s and c o s t s a r e

maximum will emerge or evolve. 27 The Lasswell-Holmberg' s

va lue i n s t i t u t i o n model of s o c i a l change a l s o sugges ts t h a t

new p a t t e r n s or arrangement w i l l be favorab ly accepted when

they produce more advantages than t h e i r a l t e r n a t i v e s . 2 8

What causes or propels i n s t i t u t i o n a l change? I n t h e

a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r t he f a c t o r s of product ion a r e land , l abo r

and c a p i t a l . The t h e o r i e s of i n s t i t u t i o n s i n a g r i c u l t u r e a r e

focused on how the r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t i e s of l and , l abor and

c a p i t a l give r i s e t o new arrangements t h a t govern t he

d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o t a l output and d e f i n e proper ty r i g h t s .

The bas i c concept proposed by North and Thomas i s t h a t

populat ion pressure upon s c a r c e resources i s t h e b a s i c impetus

f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l change. 29 I n a s i m i l a r f a sh ion ,

2 7 ~ . Demsetz. "Toward a Theory of Proper ty Rights". The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. LVII, No. 2. 1967, p. 350.

2 8 ~ . W. P e t e r (ed. 1, Comparative Theories of Soc ia l Change, Foundation f o r Research on Human Behaviour , Michigan, USA, 1966. p. 38.

2 9 ~ . North and R. Thomas, "The Rise and F a l l of t he Manorial Sys tem: A Theore t ica l Approach, I' Journa l of Economic H i s to ry , Vol. XXXI , Dec. 1971. pp. 777.

Hayami and Kikuchi hypo thes ized t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y of

non-labor r e s o u r c e s compared t o l a b o r i s t h e pr imary f o r c e

t h a t is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e t i g h t n e s s i n community

s t r u c t u r e . 30 A s - long a s a r e s o u r c e is abundan t , t h e r e would be no

need t o c o o r d i n a t e i t s use . However when community members

b e g i n t o compete f o r i t s u s e , members g r a d u a l l y deve lop r u l e s

t h a t d e f i n e r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s and s e t t l e c o n f l i c t s on t h e

u s e of r e s o u r c e s .

The t h e o r i e s on i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes were reviewed t o

p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l background f o r t h e emergence of some

i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r such a s h i r e d l a b o r ,

hunusan, 'gama' sys tem which a r e a l l r e l a t e d t o change i n

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g a r rangements . The u s e of s m a l l

mechanical t h r e s h e r s is becoming a n i n s t i t u t i o n a l ar rangement

i n s e v e r a l p a r t s of t h e P h i l i p p i n e s .

The e v o l u t i o n of h i r e d l a b o r can be e x p l a i n e d u s i n g

Rut t a n ' s theory . P o p u l a t i o n p r e s s u r e due t o i n c r e a s e i n

growth and t h e f a i l u r e of t h e i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r t o a b s o r b t h e

i n c r e a s e i n l a b o r f o r c e c r e a t e s t h e s u p p l y of h i r e d l a b o r . A

30~. Hayami and M. Kikuchi , "Inducements t o I n s t i t u t i o n a l I n n o v a t i o n i n a n A g r a r i a n Community," Economic Development and C u l t u r a l Change. Vol. XXIX. 1980. pp. 21 -36.

l a n d l e s s c l a s s developed because t h e r e i s a l i m i t t o t h e s i z e

t h a t farms can be d i v i d e d a l t h o u g h i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , o n l y

t h e e l d e s t son i n h e r i t s t h e r i g h t t o t i l l t h e l and . The

demand s i d e f o r h i r e d l a b o r i s g e n e r a t e d by d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s :

t h e improved fa rming technology t h a t r e q u i r e s h i g h l a b o r

i n p u t p e r u n i t a r e a , t h e double c r o p p i n g adop ted i n a r e a s

where i r r i g a t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d and t h e i n c r e a s e d incomes t h a t

e n a b l e o p e r a t o r s t o h i r e l a b o r f o r t h e more t e d i o u s t a s k s . AS

t h e f o r c e s of t h e s u p p l y of and t h e demand f o r h i r e d l a b o r

meet , then a market f o r i t is developed. The p a t t e r n s of

b e h a v i o r , a r rangements f o r rewards and o b l i g a t i o n s a r e t h e n

e s t a b l i s h e d f o r smooth f u n c t i o n i n g and h i r e d l a b o r becomes

i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d .

I n a review of s e v e r a l s t u d i e s , C.ast i l lo31 d i s c o u n t e d

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e n u r e and h i r e d l a b o r and summarized

f o u r e v i d e n t r e a s o n s f o r t h e i n c r e a s i n g u s e of h i r e d l a b o r .

These a r e : a c c e s s t o c a p i t a l t o pay l a b o r s e r v i c e s , i n a b i l i t y

of a v a i l a b l e f a m i l y l a b o r t o cope w i t h peaks of l a b o r

a c t i v i t y , r e l i e f from hard manual work demanded by r i c e

p r o d u c t i o n and s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s n o t t o deny o t h e r s a s h a r e i n

31 6. C a s t i 110. Beyond Manila: P h i l i p p i n e Rural Problems i n P e r s p e c t i v e . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Research Center . Ottawa, Canada. 1979. p. 91.

the resources and the chance t o surv ive . The l a s t reason

exempl i f ies the moral economy approach t o v i l l a g e i n s t i t u t i o n s

a s expounded by S c o t t . 3 2

Under the old technology of growing r i c e , t h e "hunusan"

system i s the s h a r i n g system f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

where workers r ece ive a sha re ranging from 1/5 t o 1 / 8 of t he

t o t a l paddy threshed. I n some a r e a s the p ropor t i on ranged

from one ha l f f o r immediate family members t o e i t h e r 1/6 o r

1/7 f o r o the r workers, depending on the gene ros i t y of t he

farmer owner. 33 The sha re inc ludes payment f o r ha rves t i ng ,

t h r e sh ing , and cleaning. When workers use t h e "ti lyadora",

they pay t h e t h r e sh ing f e e out of t h e i r s h a r e of 1/5 t o 1/8.

There i s a r ap id d i f f u s i o n of a new con t r ac tua l

arrangement whereby h a r v e s t i n g and th re sh ing i s l imi t ed t o

those who weeded the same p l o t s f o r f r e e . 34 his

32.J. Sco t t . The Moral Economy of t he Peasant: Rebel l ion and Subs is tence i n Southeast Asia. Yale Univers i ty Press . New Haven and London. 1976. p. 10.

3 3 ~ . Col le r . Barr io Gscao: A Study of V i l l age Ecology and the Schis tosomias i s Problem. UP Community Development Research Counci 1. Study s e r i e s No. 9. Bookman, I n c . 1960. p. 41.

3 4 ~ n Laguna where the system o r i g i n a t e d , adopt ion was complete by 1978. Y. Hayami and M. Kikuchi; op c i t . p. 91.

arrangement i s c a l l e d "gama" i n Laguna, 35 "sagod" i n

1 l o i l 0 , ~ ~ and "agui-agui" or "h i l an i " i n the Bicol a r ea . 37

I n the "atorga" sys tem p r a c t i c e d i n Pampanga , the f r e e

s e r v i c e i s rendered i n the t a sk of p u l l i n g t he s eed l ings . 38

I n some p a r t s of Pangasinan, workers do the t r a n s p l a n t i n g f o r

f r ee . 39 The "gama" , "agui-agui" , "sagod" , and "at orga" a r e

i n s t i t u t i o n a l innovat ions t o reduce t he wage r a t e f o r

h a r v e s t i n g and thresh ing . Under the "hunusan" sys tem, the

average s h a r i n g r a t e of 1/6 was a f a i r wage r a t e cons ide r ing

t h a t y i e l d s were s t i l l low and labor was y e t s ca rce .

3 5 ~ . Kikuchi; V. Cordova, E. Marciano and Y. Hayami. Changes i n Rice Harves t ing Systems i n Cent ra l Luzon and Laguna, I R R I Research Paper S e r i e s No. 31, J u l y 1979. p. 17.

3 6 ~ . Ledesma, Landless Workers and Rice Farmers: Peasant Subclasses Under Agrar ian Reform i n Two P h i l i p p i n e Vi l lages . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e . 1982. p. 7.

3 7 ~ . Barrameda, Case Study on Coconut Tenant Farmers, I n . Ph i l i pp ines TBAC. 1978. Focus on Small Farmer Credi t : - Paper and r e p o r t of the workshop on Small Farmer C r e d i t , Legaspi , Oct. 22-23. p. 70-96.

38 G. Baut is t a , Socio-Economic Condi t i o n s of the Landless Rice Workers i n the Ph i l i pp ines : The Landless of Ba r r io S t a . Lucia a s a Case i n Poin t . I n S. Hirashima OJ - tit. p. 118. -

3 9 ~ . P lanas , e t . a l . Operat ions of Harvesters and Threshers i n Cent ra l Luzon. Spec i a l S tudies Div is ion , Planning Serv ice . Of f i ce of t he Minis te r . Minis t ry of Agr i cu l tu re . May 1978.

However, due t o i n c r e a s e i n y i e l d and t h e growing

abundance of cheap l a b o r , t h e 116 s h a r e thus became h i g h e r

than t h e v a l u e of t h e marg ina l p roduc t of l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g

and threshing.40 T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e must be a way t o reduce

l a b o r c o s t . The s h i f t t o "gamal' system o r any of i t s

v a r i a t i o n s i s a more s u b t l e way t o reduce t h e wage r a t e . This

a l t e r n a t i v e pa th is cons idered more s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e and

i n v o l v e s l e s s c o n f l i c t than e i t h e r r e d u c i n g t h e s h a r i n g r a t e

o r s h i f t i n g t o fixed-wage l a b o r h i r i n g . The system prov ides

s e c u r i t y t o both farm o p e r a t o r s and l a b o r e r s . The farm

o p e r a t o r s would be a s s u r e d of workers a t t h e r i g h t time w h i l e

t h e workers a r e a s s u r e d of a s t e a d y , i f no t a c o n t i n u o u s ,

employment. 41

4 0 ~ h i s means t h a t f o r every one p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n y i e l d , l e s s than one p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n l a b o r i s needed.

41~ayami and M. Kikuchi , OJ - c i t . p. 92 .

CHAPTER 111

ME THODOLO GI

The Locale

The s tudy was conducted i n s i x v i l l a g e s i n t h e province

of Nueva E c i j a . These v i l l a g e s a r e s i x ou t of t h e e i g h t

P h i l i p p i n e v i l l a g e s inc luded i n t h e th ree-count ry p r o j e c t

e n t i t l e d "Consequences of Small Farm Mechanization on Income,

Output and Employment'' funded by t h e United S t a t e s Agency f o r

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Develoment. The p r o j e c t was implemented by t h e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e . Three i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s l oca t ed i n Cabanatuan C i ty and t h r e e r a i n f e d ones

l oca t ed i n t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y of Guimba compose t h e s tudy a r e a .

F igure 1 i s a map of t h e p rov ince of Nueva E c i j a showing t h e

r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of t h e two s i t e s . The s tudy v i l l a g e s ,

c l a s s i f i e d acco rd ing t o type of water a v a i l a b i l i t y a r e a s

fo l lows :

I r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s : Cabana tuan C i t y

San I s i d r o

Lagare

Caalibangbangan

Figure 1 . Map of Nueva Ecija province showing the sample areas.

-~

- - -... +G c; ---7 ' /

\, \'~.b '1 CARRANGLAN i

I

PANTABANGAN

GENERAL TlNlO

BULACAN

i

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

A

Rainfed v i l l a g e s : a i m b a

Galvan

San Andres

Bun01

The Sample and Sampling Design

One of t h e s t e p s i n t h e sampl ing procedure a p p l i e d i n

t h e I R R I - A I D Consequences of Small Farm Mechanizat ion P r o j e c t

was t o conduct a census o r a complete enumera t ion of a l l

househo lds , bo th a g r i c u l t u r a l and n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l , i n a l l t h e

v i l l a g e s covered by t h e s t u d y . The census y i e l d e d 1305

households f o r t h e s i x v i l l a g e s . There a r e 832, 211 and 272

households headed by farm o p e r a t o r s , l a n d l e s s l a b o r e r s and

n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l workers , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Two hundred s i x t y

farm and 43 l a n d l e s s househo lds were s e l e c t e d a s samples f o r

t h a t s t u d y .

One hundred fa rmers were drawn randomly from t h e p r o j e c t

sample f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s s t u d y . The s i z e of sample f o r

each v i l l a g e was p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e s i z e of t h e p r o j e c t

sample. The formula used i n g e t t i n g t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l sample

s i z e p e r v i l l a g e i s :

V i l l a g e sample s i z e - x 100 = s a m p l e s i z e p e r

T o t a l sample f o r t h e s i x v i l l a g e s vi 1 l a g e

An e q u i v a l e n t number of h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s were t a k e n

f o r each v i l l a g e . For each farmer responden t , a farm l a b o r e r

who worked f o r him i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g and /o r t h r e s h i n g

o p e r a t i o n s was t aken from t h e l i s t t h a t t h e farmer p rov ided .

There was no sampl ing done t o s e l e c t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g worker

per farmer . The worker who was l o c a t e d f i r s t was t h e one

i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y . The worker was e i t h e r a s m a l l farmer

o r a pure l a n d l e s s worker o r a c h i l d o r e i t h e r type .

The t o t a l number of r e sponden t s i s 200 and t h e d i s t r i -

b u t i o n by v i l l a g e and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d i n Tab le 1.

Table 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of samples f o r 6 v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

VILLAGE FARM OPERATORS HARVESTER- TOTAL THRESHERS

P r o j e c t Study Samp 1 e Samp 1 e

I r r i g a t e d : San I s i d r o 40 15 15 30 Lagare 4 1 16 16 32 Caalibangbangan 60 2 3 23 46

Sub- t o t a l 141 54 54 108

Non-irr iga t e d : Galvan 34 13 13 2 6 San Andres 42 16 16 32 Bun01 43 17 17 34

Sub- to ta l 115 46 46 92 T o t a l 26 0 100 100 200

The d i s t r i b u t i o n of workers by type i s p r e s e n t e d i n Tab le 2 .

Table 2 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of types of w o r k e r s , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

T Y P E O F W O R K E R S

Land less Child Small Chi ld A l l LOCATION o f Fa m e r of

Land less Sma 1 1 Farmer

number

I r r i g a t e d :

San I s i d r o 10 Lagare 11 Caalibangbangan 2 1

Sub- to ta l 42

Rainfed

Galvan 6 7 13 San Andres 3 2 8 3 16 Bun01 9 8 17

Sub- to ta l

T o t a l 60 4 32 4 100

Data C o l l e c t i o n

The d a t a r equ i rements of t h i s s t u d y were g a t h e r e d u s i n g

t h e f o l l o w i n g t echn iques :

a . P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w of 100 randomly s e l e c t e d fa rmer

responden t s u s i n g a p r e - t e s t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

b. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w of t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g 100

h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s i d e n t i f i e d by t h e farmer

responden t s ;

c . I n t e r v i e w of key in fo rmants f o r some h i s t o r i c a l

background and i n f o r m a t i o n ;

d. Recording of p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t p rov ided

s u p p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .

Background i n f o r m a t i o n , a r e a d e s c r i p t i o n , l o c a t i o n and

v i l l a g e maps were mos t ly t aken from t h e IRRI-USAID p r o j e c t

f i l e s . I n t e r v i e w s were conducted i n P i l i p i n o from t h e p e r i o d

January t o March, 1983.

Data A n a l v s i s

This s t u d y is l a r g e l y d e s c r i p t i v e . P e r c e n t a g e s , means

and f r e q u e n c i e s were used t o d e s c r i b e and measure t h e

v a r i a b l e s .

L i m i t a t i o n of t h e Studv

The cor respond ing worker r e sponden t shou ld have been

s e l e c t e d randomly from t h e l i s t t h a t t h e farmer responden t

gave t o t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s . However, due t o l i m i t e d t ime , t h e

sample was l i m i t e d t o t h e f i r s t a v a i l a b l e worker. The sample

workers g e n e r a l l y l i v e c l o s e t o t h e farmer r e s p o n d e n t ' s house .

There could have been more v a r i a t i o n i n d i s t a n c e s had random

sampl ing been done.

Chapter I V

RESLTLTS AND DISCUSSION

D e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Study Area

The I r r i g a t e d S i t e s

Cabanatuan Ci ty . Th i s c i t y l i e s about 115 k i l o m e t e r s

n o r t h of Manila. I t i s t h e s e a t of government of t h e p rov ince

of Nueva E c i j a and t h e commercial and e d u c a t i o n a l c e n t e r of

C e n t r a l Luzon o r Region I11 composed of t h e p rov inces of

Bulacan, Pampanga , T a r l a c , Zambales , Ba t a a n and Nueva Eci j a .

Cabanatuan C i t y has 78 barangays s p r e a d o v e r 18,375 h e c t a r e s

of l and . There a r e 7,082 h e c t a r e s of a g r i c u l t u r a l l and of

which 60% a r e g r a v i t y - i r r i g a t e d . The p r i n c i p a l c rop i s r i c e

fo l lowed by v e g e t a b l e s . A s of 1980, t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n w a s

138,297. F i g u r e 2 shows the map of t h e c i t y and t h e r e l a t i v e

l o c a t i o n s of t h e sample v i l l a g e s .

San I s i d r o . This v i l l a g e i s s i t u a t e d a l o n g t h e con-

c r e t e n a t i o n a l road eas tward t o Bongabon, Nueva E c i j a , o n l y 2

km from t h e c i t y l i m i t s of Cabanatuan. I n March, 1979, t h e r e

were 200 households i n t h e v i l l a g e , 56% of which were farm

households . There were 31 l a n d l e s s and 58 n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l

I

NPTY OF GEV NATIVIDAD MUNICIPALITY OF ALIAGA

BAkSAV

e e k

Figure 2 . A map of Cabanatuan City showing re la t ive locations of the sample v i l l a g e s .

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

households . S i x t y p e r c e n t of t h e farmers were l e s s e e s , 40%

owners o r part-owners.

The t o t a l farm a r e a was 261 ha. composed of 111 fa rms ,

each farm a v e r a g i n g 2.35 ha. Rice farms comprised 254 ha.

wi th a n a v e r a g e farm s i z e of 2.29 h e c t a r e s . About two

p e r c e n t of t h e farm a r e a was r a i n f e d bu t t r i p l e c r o p p i n g i n

17% of t h e a r e a r e s u l t e d t o a r i c e c r o p p i n g index of 200%.

Rice y i e l d s were 3.2 tons d u r i n g t h e wet s e a s o n and 3.64

d u r i n g t h e d r y season .

The v i l l a g e map of San I s i d r o i s shown i n F i g u r e 3 .

Lagare . The v i l l a g e map of Lagare a s i l l u s t r a t e d i n

F i g u r e 4 shows t h a t i t is a n i n t e r i o r v i l l a g e , a c c e s s e d

through v i l l a g e roads c u t t i n g a c r o s s San I s i d r o go ing t o t h e

v i l l a g e of Matungal-tungal and Bakero. I t is about seven

k i l o m e t e r s from Cabanatuan and is reached by jeepneys and

t r i c y c l e s o v e r rough g r a v e l and sand roads . The 1 9 7 9 census

y i e l d e d 107 farm househo lds , 28 l a n d l e s s households and 18

non-farm households . E igh ty p e r c e n t of t h e farm households

were l e s s e e s .

The t o t a l farm a r e a f o r t h i s v i l l a g e was 195 ha. a l l

p l a n t e d t o improved v a r i e t i e s of r i c e . Farms were s m a l l e r

than t h o s e i n San I s i d r o , a v e r a g i n g o n l y 1 .82 ha . Among t h e

t h r e e i r r i g a t e d sample v i l l a g e s y i e l d s were h i g h e s t i n Lagare

a t 4 . 5 4 tons /ha d u r i n g t h e wet s e a s o n and 4.69 t o n s / h a i n t h e

MAP OF

80. SAN lSlDRO

Figure 3. A map of the v i l l age of San Isidro, Cabanatuan City,

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

Figure 4 . A map of the v i l l a g e of Lagare, Cabanatuan City.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

!

@3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Q i?) J ,

, \ 9088 8 - ;g

@ .+ 4 ;3 3 Q - 15 '3 ,Z' 6. " j.2

&> - A.. 3 r r - b".

6 ? c y

2

I

8

gCJ

<

I I T O B A K E R 0 -

4 / P

> f U

3 9

MAP OF

Bo. LAGARE, CABANATUAN, N.E.

b.

.;

23 b.

2 0

t .

$ c 3

9 0 o

3

dry season. One p e r c e n t of t h e farm a r e a had no i r r i g a t i o n

but t h e o v e r a l l r i c e c r o p p i n g i n t e n s i t y was s t i l l 179%.

Caalibangbangan. This is t h e b i g g e s t i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e

c o n s i s t i n g of 359 ha of farm land and 410 househo lds . More

than one t h i r d (35%) of t h e households a r e n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l

and a l i t t l e l e s s than h a l f a r e farm househo lds . Caalibang-

bangan is on ly seven k i l o m e t e r s n o r t h of t h e c i t y p r o p e r ,

occupying p o r t i o n s of t h e c o n c r e t e Ph i l ipp ine - Japan Fr iend-

s h i p Highway go ing t o t h e Cagayan Va l ley Region. Some p a r t s

of t h e v i l l a g e a r e t r a v e r s e d by t h e p r o v i n c i a l road go ing t o

t h e towns of Al iaga and Zaragoza. The heads of t h e non-farm

household a r e u s u a l l y employed o r have b u s i n e s s concerns i n

Cabana tuan C i t y . There were 198 farms wi th a n average s i z e of 1.81 ha

growing improved v a r i e t i e s of r i c e . Rice y i e l d e d 3.7 tons i n

the wet season , 4 . 3 tons/ha i n the dry season. Figure 5 i s

t h e v i l l a g e map of Caalibangbangan.

The Rainfed S i t e s

h i m b a . The town of h i m b a i s 153 km n o r t h of Manila

o r abou t 38 km nor thwest of Cabanatuan Ci ty . There a r e 64

barangays o r v i l l a g e s occupying 23,300 h e c t a r e s of l and .

BARANGAY MAP

CAALIBANGBANGAN , CAB. CITY

Figure 5. A map of the village of Caalibangbangan, Cabanatuan City.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

There were 58,873 pe r sons l i v i n g i n Guimba i n 1980. S i x t y -

t h r e e p e r c e n t of t h e l and i s a g r i c u l t u r a l i n c o n t r a s t t o

Cabanatuan 's 38%. There i s no i r r i g a t i o n sys tem s e r v i n g t h e

town of Guimba. Of i t s 14,740 h e c t a r e s of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d ,

85% i s r a i n f e d w h i l e t h e r e s t a r e i r r i g a t e d by pumps. A map

of Guimba showing t h e sample v i l l a g e s i s shown i n F i g u r e 6.

Galvan. This v i l l a g e i s s i x k i l o m e t e r s away from t h e

town proper of Guimba. The v i l l a g e can be reached from t h e

town p a s s i n g through t h e newly-bui l t c o n c r e t e n a t i o n a l road

t h a t connec t s t h e p rov ince of Nueva E c i j a t o t h e p rov ince of

T a r l a c t o t h e wes t . According t o t h e March 1979 c e n s u s , t h e r e

were a t o t a l of 134 househo lds , 81% of which were farm

households . Bare ly seven households were n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l and

19 were l a n d l e s s l a b o r households . Galvan used t o be a p a r t

of a l a r g e e s t a t e w i t h t e n a n t workers but w i t h P r e s i d e n t i a l

Decree No. 27 , a lmost a l l f a rmers a r e now a m o r t i z i n g owners.

Galvan i s a s m a l l v i l l a g e (Fig . 7 ) w i t h o n l y 188 ha farm

land . Rice i s p l a n t e d i n 183 h a , w i t h a n a v e r a g e farm s i z e o f

1.70 ha. Yie lds i n Galvan a r e low, a v e r a g i n g o n l y 2.0 tons /ha

i n t h e wet season . Dry s e a s o n r i c e y i e l d e d 2.9 tons /ha

a l t h o u g h on ly l e s s than f i v e p e r c e n t of t h e r i - ce a r e a i s

p l a n t e d d u r i n g t h e d r y season .

Figure 6 . A map of Guimba showing re la t ive locations of the sample v i l lages .

I

; I \ L , J 3 3 G

M L I ? ~ Z , N.E.

\

OUEZON, N. E

G U I M B A , N.E.

- ?rov'i road Eonlo

A

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

+

F i g u r e 7 . A map of t h e v i l l a g e of Galvan, Guimba.

BARANGAY MAP 0 F

GALVAN , GUIMBA , N. EClJA

S A N MIGUEL .--. --.- - , * , , p . I , , * *

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

9

1

3 - 3 * 0 8.

,3 ,? 2' ,$ -

? , , - - - - . -. ... - . . - ~ -. L. - - - . - J - I 5 r. l. a ;-, .e ,+; e! ,z 3 9 !s,s 3 8 9 3 8. + 2 3 --

Q @ @I 8 I :3 I I

I I

3 , i b - IU PAR rlOA I

\ -

-4 m

3

G A L V A N R O A D - - ra SAN J.VDRES - . 8 3 G 6 \e1@,:5~(3 (2 2) @ ;$\ <i) $) ~ G I 5, (3 13 ,?j & 2 2 4 $ .gj ~ r n , .. .2 2, 6 :$? - z: ../ 4: i

- I . z LEGEND I b-

A3 I : .o r 3 ...- SChOOL I

- .CHIJRCH ..--.

l a . . . - . . . . . "7

I - TRAIL - .. BGY 3OAD - - PROV ROAD

- .--*.

e -.@ -.- . b ° C I J BGY BOUNDARY

1 n -- BGY H L L L

9 - @ -- HOUSEHOLD -*.. -.--.---*-'-n 0 - AD"IT1O"AL

i MANCGANG MARlKlT I.., RILEF.LLD J

San Andres. The road t o t h i s v i l l a g e i s a g r a v e l and

sand p r o v i n c i a l road go ing e a s t t o t h e town of Talugtug. San

Andres i s seven k i l o m e t e r s from t h e town proper of Guimba

(Fig . 8 ) . Among t h e s i x sample v i l l a g e s , San Andres had t h e

l e a s t number of househo lds , t o t a l l i n g t o o n l y 125. Of t h e s e ,

on ly two a r e n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l and 1.4 were l a n d l e s s l a b o r

households .

San Andres has a t o t a l farm a r e a of 216 h e c t a r e s . E i g h t y

p e r c e n t of t h e r i c e farms were owned by t h e c u l t i v a t o r s , each

r i c e farm a v e r a g i n g 1.94 ha. Yie lds i n San Andres r i c e farms

were t h e lowest a t 1.94 tons /ha .

Bunol. The v i l l a g e of Bunol i s s i t u a t e d a l o n g t h e

p r o v i n c i a l road t h a t connec t s t h e p h i l i p p i n e - ~ a ~ a n F r i e n d s h i p

~ i g h w a y t o t h e town of Guimba which i s two k i l o m e t e r s d i s t a n t

from t h e Bunol. I t had t h e l a r g e s t t o t a l farm a r e a of 422 ha.

wi th on ly 283 households . Only 70 p e r c e n t of them were farm

households wi th o v e r 12% n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l househo lds .

Bunol had 394 ha. of r i c e l a n d , w i t h a n a v e r a g e farm s i z e

of about 1.98 ha. Improved v a r i e t i e s of r i c e y i e l d e d 2.3

tons /ha i n t h e wet season. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of pumps made i t

p o s s i b l e t o p l a n t about one t h i r d of t h e l a n d a r e a wi th r i c e

i n t h e d r y s e a s o n w i t h a n average y i e l d o f 3 .9 t o n s / h a .

Figure 8 . A map of the vi l lage of San Andres, Guimba.

!

MAP OF

SAN ANDRES, Gba. e

9

@ 2,

,E, @, @, @. 0, - T O T A L U G T O G

- - T O @ - @ @ 0 @ Q @ 5 0

0 8 0 L m D

p, ;"APE.

B ~ m . Q BC CtNlEFi

n wAmlllK.

--- --- TRAL

L

C3

< T

2

@ @ 0 g t e 0 63 0 @ O@o 63

Q @ 0 @@@ @

@B 63 @ - -?jr &1 @@@@@@ @@@ 9 G,a, J.2 3 -3 , ,@s @ @

9,3,3@@@c93~?:.?3 ,

However, h igh c o s t of f u e l f o r pumps has made pump i r r i g a t i o n

q u i t e uneconomical . During t h e s u r v e y p e r i o d , l e s s t h a n 30

h e c t a r e s o r a b o u t e i g h t p e r c e n t were p l a n t e d t o a second c r o p

of r i c e .

Unl ike San Andres and Q l v a n t h a t used t o be l a r g e

e s t a t e s b e f o r e 1972, t h e same p a t t e r n of l a n d h o l d i n g s

p r e v a i l e d i n Bun01 where two t h i r d s of t h e o p e r a t o r s were

l e s s e e s , w i t h a b o u t 16% owners and part-owners.

F i g u r e 9 i s t h e v i l l a g e map of Bunol.

Both S i t e s

Tab les 3 and 4 summarize most of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n . F igure 10 i s a g r a p h i c a l

p r e s e n t a t i o n of Table 3.

A Survey of E x i s t i n g Harvest ing-Threshing Arrangements

There were s i x types of h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements

i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e su rvey . T h e i r p r e v a l e n c e i n t h e s&rveyed

Figure 9 . A map of the v i l l a g e of Bunol, Guimba.

Table 3 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f households by occupat iona l group, 6 v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1979.

VILLAGE O C C U P A T I O N A L G R O U P

Farm Operators Landless Workers Non-agricultural All Workers

Cabanatuan City San I s i d r o Lagare Caalibangbangan

Sub-to t a l

Guimba Galvan San Andres Buno 1

Sub-to t a l 'Total

No.

11 1 107 198

41 6

108 109 199

41 6 832

No.

3 1 2 8 7 0

129

19 14 4 9

82 21 1

No.

58 18 142

218

7 2

3 5

5 4 272

Table 4. Farm c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s fo r 6 v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1979-80.

ITEM I R R I @TED RAINFED

San I s i d r o Lagare Caalibang- Galvan San Andres Bun01 bangan

Number of farms (no. ) 111 107 198 10 8 109 199 Tota l farm a r e a (ha.) 26 1 194 359 188 216 42 2 Tota l r i c e a r e a (ha. ) 254 194 349 183 20 9 394 Average r i c e a r e a (ha . ) 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.0 Rice cropping i n t e n s i t y ( 2 ) 200 179 180 104 107 135

Rice y i e l d (kg/ha)

Wet season Dry season

Source: b r a n , P. and E. Cas i l l an . Consequences of Farm Mechanization P ro j ec t S i t e Descr ip t ion : Phi l ipp ines . Working Paper No. 34. (IRRI , Los Banos , 1981).

a Less than 10 hec t a r e s planted.

Average f o r 24 hec t a r e s .

Al I vil loges

Figure 10. Distribution of households by occupational categories, s i x v i l lages , Nueva Ecija, 1979.

v i l l a g e s is p r e s e n t e d i n Table 5. Each arrangement i s coded

a s A , B , C , D , E and F and a l l s u c c e e d i n g t a b l e s by

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements w i l l have r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s I

D e s c r i p t i o n of Harves t ing- Thresh ing Arrangements

The e x i s t i n g h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements a r e

d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e methods f o r h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g , k ind of l a b o r employed, r a t e s and modes of payment

and p a r t i c i p a t i o n of workers. The ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

arrangements t h a t had been r e p l a c e d by t h e p r e s e n t ones ,

i n c l u d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e r easons f o r such s u b s t i t u t i o n i s

i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s t h a t £01 low.

H a r v e s t i n g f o r a s h a r e and small t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e .

This i s t h e ar rangement t h a t was comple te ly adop ted i n a l l t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s of Cabanatuan C i t y t o r e p l a c e t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l method of hand t h r e s h i n g . I n t h e p rev ious sys tem,

payment on a s h a r i n g b a s i s covered f o r t h e combined t a s k s of

h a r v e s t i n g , t h r e s h i n g and c l e a n i n g w i t h t h e r a t e o f - payment

Table 5 . Harves t ing- th resh ing a r rangements e x i s t i n g i n s i x v i l l a g e s of Nueva E c i j a , 100 f a r m e r s , 1982.

IRRIGATED RAINFED ITEM CODE

A 1 1 Q l v a n San Bun01 A l l And r e s

Number of fa rmers Type of arrangement:

H a r v e s t i n g f o r a s h a r e and smal l t h r e s h e r

Da i ly wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g and McCormick t h r e s h e r

Da i ly wage and exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and McCormick t h r e s h e r

H a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g f o r a s h a r e

Da i ly wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g and smal l t h r e s h e r

Exchange' l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and s m a l l t h r e s h e r

numbers

5 4 13 16 17 100

r a n g i n g from 116 t o 118 of the t o t a l o u t p u t . H a r v e s t i n g i s

done u s i n g s i c k l e s and s t a l k s a r e bea ten a g a i n s t a t h r e s h i n g

frame, a l o g o r a rock t o s e p a r a t e t h e g r a i n s from t h e s t a l k s .

Under t h e p r e s e n t sys tem, h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g becomes

two s e p a r a t e t a s k s , each t a s k done by a s e p a r a t e group of

workers. Harves t ing g e t s a s h a r e of 1 /10 t o 1 /11 o f t h e g r o s s

o u t p u t whi le f o r t h r e s h i n g , a machine f e e r a n g i n g from 5.5% t o

6.5% of t h e t o t a l o u t p u t i s pa id .

I n Lagare , t h e Samahang Nayon o r farmers ' o r g a n i z a t i o n

purchased a u n i t of t h e a x i a l f low t h r e s h e r on i n s t a l l m e n t

b a s i s and charged farmer members 5 . 5 % t h r e s h i n g f e e . This i s

one h a l f pe rcen t l e s s than t h e r a t e charged by p r i v a t e

t h r e s h e r owners. Non-members who used t h e machine d i d no t

en joy t h e one h a l f pe rcen t d i s c o u n t extended t o member

farmers . I n a span of t h r e e y e a r s , t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n was a b l e

t o a c q u i r e a n a d d i t i o n a l u n i t of t h e machine and con t inued t o

charge one h a l f p e r c e n t lower than p r e v a i l i n g r a t e s . The

h a r v e s t e r s had t o c u t t h e s t a l k s and g a t h e r them i n t o a p i l e

i n t h e t h r e s h i n g s i t e s s c a t t e r e d w i t h i n t h e farm. I t i s t h e

members of t h e t h r e s h i n g crew who a r e supposed t o feed t h e

s t a l k s i n t o t h e machine but o f t e n , h a r v e s t e r s h e l p them i n

t h i s t a s k . They a l s o o f f e r h e l p i n measur ing and bagg ing t h e

th reshed and c leaned paddy. The h a r v e s t e r s h e l p t o h a s t e n

o p e r a t i o n s s o t h a t they can g e t t h e i r s h a r e s sooner .

Workers' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s system i s un l imi ted .

Workers who wanted t o harves t a por t ion ' a r e almost always

accommodated by the farmer ope ra to r u sua l ly on a first-come

f i r s t - s e r v e b a s i s . Some farmers have s t a r t e d t o l i m i t t he

number of workers and show preference f o r r e l a t i v e s i n t h e i r

choice of workers. Machines a r e u sua l ly con t r ac t ed two t o

t h r e e days before a c t u a l opera t ions . Machines were u sua l ly

owned by farmers i n s i d e t he v i l l a g e s .

Daily wage f o r ha rves t i ng and McCormick t h r e s h e r f o r a

fee . The payment of a d a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g toge the r -

with the use of McCormick th re she r s has been p rac t i ced f o r a

long time. I t emerged from two old harves t ing- thresh ing

arrangements. One of the systems i t rep laced was the sys tem

whereby h a r v e s t i n g was paid i n cash on a p e r h e c t a r e b a s i s o r

i n kind based on seeding r a t e s and used the same McCormick

t h r e s h e r . I t a l s o r e p l a c e d the o l d s y s t e m whereby h a r v e s t i n g

l abor was on an exchange b a s i s .

The demise of the exchange labor system and the

disbandment of ha rves t i ng crews i n t o i nd iv idua l workers were

r e spons ib l e f o r the emergence of t h i s system. Since t h e r e

were no more exchange labor or group h a r v e s t i n g labor

a v a i l a b l e , payment f o r h a r v e s t i n g on a d a i l y cash wage

emerged. Daily wage r a t e s f o r h a r v e s t i n g was t h e same a s i n

most o t h e r farm o p e r a t i o n s . Average d a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g

d u r i n g t h e s t u d y p e r i o d was t e n pesos .

I n t h i s sys tem, t h e r e i s no l i m i t t o t h e number of peop le

who could p a r t i c i p a t e . The d a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g i n c l u d e d

payment f o r c u t t i n g and b u n d l i n g s t a l k s and s t o c k p i l i n g them

i n t o smal l s t a c k s c a l l e d "sipok". The same h a r v e s t e r s can be

h i r e d t o c o l l e c t t h e s t a l k s from t h e s m a l l e r "sipok" and

s t a c k i n g them i n b i g g e r bed-s ty le s t a c k s o r i n t o t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l cone-shaped s t a c k s c a l l e d "mandalas". "Mandalas"

a r e made when t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r s a r e expec ted t o a r r i v e

a t a much l a t e r d a t e of about one month o r more. Otherwise ,

l a r g e bed-s ty le s t a c k s a r e formed. About f i v e workers can

c o l l e c t t h e s t a l k s and b u i l d t h e s t a c k s i n one day f o r farms

one t o two h e c t a r e s .

Thresher owners a r e informed of t h e f a r m e r s ' need f o r

t h e i r s e r v i c e s a t about t h e same week h a r v e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s

a r e done. Threshers can a r r i v e v e r y q u i c k l y . The a r r i v a l of

t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r s depends on whether t h e u n i t c o n t a c t e d

i s a v a i l a b l e o r t h a t t h e r e a r e enough farms i t could s e r v i c e

i n one p a r t i c u l a r a r e a . Under' p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n s , however,

t h e l e n g t h of t ime s p e n t w a i t i n g f o r t h e t h r e s h e r s t o come i s

v e r y much s h o r t e r than i t was f i v e o r t e n y e a r s ago. The u s e

of l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s had been abandoned i n a r e a s where

i r r i g a t i o n came and where l and had been d i s t r i b u t e d t o

t e n a n t s . I t s use t h e r e f o r e , had been l i m i t e d t o

s ing le -c ropped r a i n f e d a r e a s and meant more machines p e r u n i t

of l and a r e a . However, machine owners r e q u i r e d a t l e a s t a

c e r t a i n number of cavans expec ted t o be t h r e s h e d i n one

l o c a t i o n i n o r d e r t o j u s t i f y t h e i r c o s t s of o p e r a t i o n i n

coming t o a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e .

Da i ly wage and exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and

McCormick t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e . This ar rangement i s v e r y much

l i k e t h e p r e c e d i n g arrangement d i s c u s s e d excep t f o r t h e

i n c l u s i o n of h a r v e s t e r s on a n exchange l a b o r b a s i s . The

farmers a d o p t i n g t h i s sys tem s t i l l engage i n exchange l a b o r

wi th t h e i r neighbor farmers f o r s e c u r i t y r e a s o n s . S ince

h a r v e s t l a b o r i s d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n d u r i n g peak months, t h e

p resence of exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g e a s e s t h e i r problem

of o b t a i n i n g t h e r e q u i r e d number of workers . Farmers

r e p o r t e d , however, t h a t they now exchange l a b o r on ly w i t h two

o r t h r e e farmers compared t o e a r l i e r y e a r s when t h e exchange

l a b o r pool had a t l e a s t e i g h t t o t e n members.

H a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g f o r a s h a r e . Under t h i s

a r rangement , t h e t a s k s of h a r v e s t i n g , t h r e s h i n g and c l e a n i n g

a r e pa id j o i n t l y on a s h a r e b a s i s . This sys tem i s t h e k i n d of

ar rangement t h a t r e p l a c e d d a i l y wage payment f o r manual

h a r v e s t i n g and a t h r e s h i n g f e e f o r McCormick t h r e s h e r s i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s of Cabanatuan C i t y . This i s b e i n g s lowly

adopted i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s . A s s e e n i n Table 5 , abou t 50%

of t h e farmers i n Bunol a r e employing t h i s ar rangement .

Bunol, though r a i n f e d , has q u i t e a number of deep w e l l pumps

t h a t e n a b l e some farmers t o p l a n t two c r o p s of r i c e i n a y e a r .

The McCormick t h r e s h e r , t h e r e f o r e , i s no t a s u i t a b l e

technology i n t h e s e farms where o p e r a t i o n s had t o be f i n i s h e d

a s soon a s p o s s i b l e t o make room f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l crop.

This sys tem i s a l s o a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o McCormick t h r e s h e r

use i n i n s t a n c e s where farmers want immediate t h r e s h i n g t o

make paddy a v a i l a b l e e i t h e r f o r home consumption o r f o r s a l e .

Payment under t h i s ar rangement a t t h e t ime of t h e s u r v e y

ranged from 1 /8 t o 1 /10 of t h e t o t a l t h r e s h e d paddy. The 1 / 8

s h a r i n g r a t e i n c l u d e d h a u l i n g of bagged paddy t o t h e f a r m e r ' s

house. This was p r a c t i c e d mos t ly among fa rmers whose houses

were l e s s t h a n h a l f a k i l o m e t e r from t h e farm. F a r t h e r than

t h i s , no h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r would do t h e h a u l i n g f o r f r e e but

they would s e t t l e f o r a lower s h a r i n g r a t e and g e t pa id f o r

h i s h a u l i n g s e r v i c e s . Regular r a t e s were 119 bu t some g i v e a s

low a s 1 /10 e s p e c i a l l y when t h e r e a r e few farms t o h a r v e s t .

This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e when fa rmers happened t o h a r v e s t

e i t h e r much e a r l i e r o r l a t e r than t h e r e s t of t h e o t h e r

farmers o r d u r i n g t h e second c r o p h a r v e s t when o n l y a few

farmers a r e a b l e t o p l a n t a n o t h e r r i c e crop. These c r e a t e a

s i t u a t i o n where a l a r g e number of a v a i l a b l e workers a r e

wan t ing t o work on a l i m i t e d a r e a o f t e n l e a v i n g t h e workers no

cho ice bu t t o a c c e p t a lower payment. A lower payment was

cons ide red a b e t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e than n o t t o have any income a t

a l l .

D a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g and s m a l l t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e .

Small t h r e s h e r s r e p l a c e d t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r s i n t h i s

ar rangement combined wi th d a i l y wage payment f o r h a r v e s t i n g .

The more common arrangement employs t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r .

This sys tem has been i n use on ly r e c e n t l y where t h e use of

s m a l l t h r e s h e r s has d i f f u s e d . I n t h i s a r rangement , o p e r a t i o n s

a r e done much f a s t e r because even i f f a rmers have t o w a i t f o r

a n a v a i l a b l e t h r e s h e r , w a i t i n g t ime i s s h o r t e r compared t o

w a i t i n g f o r a McCormick t h r e s h e r .

Farmers employing t h i s ar rangement s p e c u l a t e s t h a t

h a r v e s t i n g would have t o be pa id on a s h a r i n g b a s i s a s i t i s

b e i n g done i n most i r r i g a t e d a r e a s . They commented t h a t they

could have cop ied t h e same arrangement but s i n c e h a r v e s t e r s

a r e used t o b e i n g pa id a d a i l y cash wage, t h e y pay h a r v e s t e r s

a d a i l y wage.

Exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and s m a l l t h r e s h e r f o r a

f e e . This is no t a common arrangement bu t s i n c e t h e two -

responden t s under t h i s c a t e g o r y had r e p e a t e d l y employed i t , i t

has been c l a s s i f i e d a s a d i s t i n c t t y p e of ar rangement . These

two fa rmers have s m a l l farms, one w i t h o n l y one h e c t a r e , t h e

o t h e r , 1.25 ha . The responden t s r e p o r t e d t h a t i t i s o n l y t h e

type of t h r e s h e r used t h a t has been changed. Before t h i s

a r rangement , they used t o h a r v e s t u s i n g exchange l a b o r and

th reshed w i t h a McCormick t h r e s h e r . I n c i d e n t a l l y , t h e s e two

fa rmers a r e r e l a t i v e s .

An E v a l u a t i o n of P r e s e n t Harves t ing- Thresh ing Arrangements

Reasons f o r choos ing a h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e -

ment. For a m a j o r i t y of t h e farmer r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e r e was

r e a l l y no cho ice l e f t i n c o n s i d e r i n g which sys tem t o adop t a s

shown i n Table 6. When 54% of them s t a t e d t h e r e was no c h o i c e

a v a i l a b l e , they were r e f e r r i n g t o e i t h e r one o r a l l of t h e

f o l l o w i n g reasons : t h e ar rangement i s t h e most common one; i t

is t h e on ly ar rangement p r a c t i c e d l o c a l l y ; t h e v i l l a g e l e a d e r

urged them t o use i t ; o r t h e a v a i l a b l e workers demand i t ,

o t h e r w i s e , they a r e n o t w i l l i n g t o work f o r them under a n o t h e r

ar rangement . This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i 1 l a g e s where a d o p t i o n of t h e s m a l l mechani ca 1 t h r e s h e r s h a s

been completed and no worker would h a r v e s t i f t h r e s h i n g would

be by manual means.

H a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements t h a t pa id a d a i 1 y wage

t o h a r v e s t e r s (B, C and E) were chosen because t h e y were

c o n s i d e r e d t o employ more workers t h a n t h e o t h e r systems a s

r e p o r t e d by 16% of t h e responden t s . The most common r e a s o n

c i t e d by t h o s e who adop ted h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g f o r a

s h a r e was a l s o t h e employment e f f e c t s of such arrangement .

They s a i d t h e i r sys tem employs o r b e n e f i t s more workers s i n c e

a l l payments, both f o r t h e h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g l a b o r go

t o t h e workers , n o t t o t h e machine owners. The seven fa rmers

who e i t h e r pa id d a i l y cash wages o r u t i l i z e d exchange l a b o r

f o r h a r v e s t i n g i n combinat ion w i t h s m a l l t h r e s h e r s c o n s i d e r e d

Table 6. Reasons f o r c h o i c e of a r rangement , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

REASONS HARVEST1 NGTHRESHI N G ARRANGEMENT

A B C D E F ALL TYPES

Number of f a r m e r s 5 4 18 11 10 5 2 100

Reasons : p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

No c h o i c e Employs more workers Cheaper Fas t e r Less t r o u b l e No cash r e q u i r e d S u i t s farm s i z e Assured workers

t h e i r ar rangements f a s t e r than t h o s e employing McCormick

t h r e s h e r s .

One major r e a s o n f o r t h e a d o p t i o n of h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

s h a r e i s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s no cash o u t l a y r e q u i r e d under

t h i s ar rangement inasmuch a s a l l payments a r e both i n k ind .

I t s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e farm s i z e s accoun ted f o r

14% of t h e reasons mentioned. L ikewise , s e v e n p e r c e n t of t h e

reasons c i t e d lower c o s t s i n c u r r e d u s i n g t h e sys tem.

Farmers who employed exchange l a b o r t o t a l l y o r p a r t i a l l y

cons ide red t h e a s s u r a n c e of a v a i l a b l e workers e s p e c i a l l y

d u r i n g peak p e r i o d s a s a b i g r e a s o n f o r t h e i r c h o i c e .

Advantages of S p e c i f i c Harves t ing- Thresh ing Arrangements

Some farmers can have a c h o i c e among a l t e r n a t i v e

ar rangements whi le o t h e r s do no t have any a l t e r n a t i v e a t a l l .

Both groups , however, can p e r c e i v e t h e advan tages of t h e

p r e s e n t system they a d o p t over t h o s e which e x i s t e l sewhere o r

e x i s t e d i n t h e p a s t . For farmers who had a c h o i c e , t h e

advan tages conceived were u s u a l l y t h e same r e a s o n s i n t h e i r

p r e f e r e n c e f o r a g iven arrangement . The b i g g e s t advan tage of

t h e h a r v e s t i n g f o r a s h a r e and s m a l l t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e

ar rangement is t h e speed w i t h which o p e r a t i o n s a r e c a r r i e d

o u t . This was r e p o r t e d by 89% of t h e 54 f a r m e r s from t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s (Tab le 7 ) . An advan tage of t h e ar rangement

on t h e p a r t of t h e workers i s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of much p h y s i c a l

e x e r t i o n i n t h r e s h i n g . Other advan tages c i t e d were l e s s

s u p e r v i s i o n , lower g r a i n l o s s , and of cash r e q u i r e d f o r

o p e r a t i o n s t o be performed.

S i x t y one p e r c e n t of t h e farmers who paid h a r v e s t e r s a

d a i l y wage and t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e a l s o c i t e d

f a s t e r o p e r a t i o n s a s an advan tage of t h e system. About one

f i f t h s a i d t h a t t h e ar rangement was cheaper t o use . The u s e

of machines makes i t l e s s t i r i n g and more conven ien t f o r

workers . McCormick u s e r s c la imed t h a t g r a i n l o s s i s lower

wi th t h i s sys tem t h a n hand b e a t i n g o r u s i n g s m a l l t h r e s h e r s .

The a d d i t i o n of exchange l a b o r t o t h o s e pa id i n cash

d a i l y f o r h a r v e s t i n g made complet ion of t h e t a s k s f a s t e r .

Th i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s where

h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r i s q u i t e s c a r c e . The s u r e t y of a t l e a s t a

few h a r v e s t e r s on a n exchange b a s i s a l s o f a c i l i t a t e d f a s t e r

o p e r a t i o n s t h a n when one had t o w a i t f o r h i r e d h a r v e s t e r s t o

'I'able I . Advantages by ha rve s t i ng - th r e sh ing arrangements , 100 f a rmer s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ADVA NTA GE HARVEST1 NG-THRES H I N G ARRANGEMENT

A B C D E F ALL TYPES

Number of farmers

Advantages : F a s t e r Less t i r i n g f o r workers More convenient No cash r e q u i r e d Employs more people Cheaper Less l o s s e s Less s u p e r v i s i o n

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

p r e s e n t themselves f o r work. Machine use f o r t h r e s h i n g made

t h e work l e s s t i r i n g f o r workers .

The most o u t s t a n d i n g advan tage a s p e r c e i v e d by 40% of

those who chose manual h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g f o r a s h a r e i s

t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of any need f o r cash d u r i n g t h e

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g p e r i o d s . They a l s o c la imed t h e s y s tem i s

a cheaper ar rangement compared t o o t h e r a 1 t e r n a t i v e s . These

fa rmers a l s o contend t h a t t h i s ar rangement i s l e s s t i r i n g t h a n

p r e p a r i n g t h e cone-shaped "mandalas1' o r l a r g e s t a c k s when

u s i n g t h e l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s . 'Laborers who h a r v e s t a r e

t h e same people who t h r e s h s o t h a t o p e r a t i o n s a r e u s u a l l y done

i n a much s h o r t e r t ime. The workers want t o g e t t h e i r s h a r e s

a s soon a s p o s s i b l e s o they a r e m o t i v a t e d t o f i n i s h o p e r a t i o n s

i n t h e s h o r t e s t time p o s s i b l e . This advan tage f u r t h e r l e a d s

t o t h e b e n e f i t s of making t h e f i e l d ready f o r o p e r a t i o n s f o r

a n o t h e r c rop and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h r e s h e d paddy e i t h e r f o r

home consumption o r s a l e i n a s h o r t e r t ime .

Problems w i t h S p e c i f i c Harves t ing- Thresh ing Arrangements

Almost t h r e e f o u r t h s of t h e responden t had no problems

wi th t h e p a r t i c u l a r ar rangement they a d o p t (Tab le 8 ) . Of t h e

Table 8. Problems w i t h s p e c i f i c h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

PROBLEM HARVESTING-THRESHING ARRANGEMENT

A B C D E F ALL TYPES

Number of farmers 5 4 18 11 10 5 2 100

Problems :

No problem High and i r r e g u l a r wages Lack of workers Control of number of

workers Lack of cash High g r a i n l o s s e s Machine d e l a y

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

remaining one- four th , l a c k of workers was mentioned i n f o u r

ou t of t h e s i x systems d e f i n e d .

I n t h e manual h a r v e s t i n g smal l t h r e s h e r arrangement i n

t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , a n equal number of fa rmers c i t e d two

seemingly c o n t r a s t i n g problems : l a c k of workers and t h e

problem of c o n t r o l l i n g t h e number of workers. The f i r s t

problem is common under such c o n d i t i o n s a s peak s e a s o n s , poor

crop c o n d i t i o n s o r prolonged bad weather whi le t h e second

problem happens d u r i n g normal h a r v e s t p e r i o d s .

Fanners who paid d a i l y wages t o h a r v e s t e r s complained

mos t ly of t h e high and i r r e g u l a r wages. S ince l a b o r is

s c a r c e , each farmer t r i e s t o o f f e r a somewhat h i g h e r wage r a t e

than t h e o t h e r s s o a s t o a t t r a c t workers. The l a c k of

r e q u i r e d cash t o pay h a r v e s t e r s and machine d e l a y s were a l s o

c i t e d a s problems.

Not one out of the ten farmers who pay harvester-thresher

a s h a r e nor any of t h e two who employ exchange l a b o r and s m a l l

t h r e s h e r r e p o r t e d any problem.

Cost Comparison of Harves t ing-Thresh ing Arrangements

Table 9 p r e s e n t s a c o s t comparison among t h e s i x t y p e s of

ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements i d e n t i f i e d . The d i f f e r e n t

c o s t components by v i l l a g e and arrangement a s shown on Table

9a supplements t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on Table 9. Thresh ing f e e s by

pe rcen tage and s h a r i n g r a t e s f o r h a r v e s t i n g a n d / o r t h r e s h i n g

were based on average y i e l d s by v i l l a g e . P a l a y was p r i c e d a t

11.25/kg. E s t i m a t e s , however, d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e c o s t of

unpaid f a r m e r , f a m i l y o r exchange l a b o r .

The a v e r a g e c o s t p e r h e c t a r e was g e n e r a l l y much h i g h e r i n

the i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s of Cabanatuan C i t y t h a n t h e r a i n f e d

v i l l a g e s of Chimba. The d i f f e r e n c e i s g e n e r a l l y e x p l a i n e d by

t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n y i e l d s . I n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , t h e

average y i e l d i s on ly 2353 kg/ha whi le t h e i r r i g a t e d farms

averaged 4026 kg/ha or 1 . 7 1 times h igher . A l l v i l l a g e s of

Cabanatuan paid h a r v e s t e r s a 1 /10 s h a r e and s m a l l t h r e s h e r s a

6% f e e . The c o s t of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g i n Lagare was

h i g h e s t because i t had t h e h i g h e s t y i e l d of 4620 kg/ha.

Among t h e f i v e ar rangements adop ted i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s ,

t h e two fa rmers who h a r v e s t e d wi th exchange l a b o r pa id t h e

Table 9. Average c o s t pe r h e c t a r e f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g by type of a r rangement , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

VI LLA GE NUMBER / COST PER HA

cabana tuan C i t y

San I s i d r o n P/ha

Lagare n P/ha

Caalibang- bangan n

P/ha

Guimba

San Andres

Bun01

Table 9 ( c o n t i n u e d )

a A = H a r v e s t i n g f o r a s h a r e ; s m a l l t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e . B = Dai ly wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g ; McCormick t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e . C = Dai ly wage and exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g ; McCormick t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e . D = H a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g f o r a s h a r e . E = Dai ly wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g ; s m a l l t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e . F = Exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g ; s m a l l t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e .

Table 9a. Cost components of t h e s i x h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , s i x v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

HARVESTING C4SH COSTS NON-C4SH COSTS THRESH1 N G VILLAGE ARRANGEMENT

NO. TOTAL Labor Food, H a r v e s t i n g Thresh ing Harves t ing-

e t c . Share Fee Thresh ing f e e

H a r v e s t i n g f o r a s h a r e San I s i d r o 15 429 258 687

Small t h r e s h e r Lagare 16 5 78 346 924 f o r a f e e Caal ibang-

bangan 2 3 50 3 30 2 805

D a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g Galvan 6 223 9

McCormi c k San Andres 6 15 1 5 t h r e s h e r f o r Buno 1 6 197 a f e e

D a i l y wage and exchange Galvan 6 186 97 l a b o r f o r San Andres 4 125 42 h a r v e s t i n g Bunol 1 140 McCormick t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e

Table 9a (Cont inued)

HARVEST1 N G CASH COSTS NON-CASH COSTS TOTAL THRESH1 N G VILLAGE NO. ARRANGEMENT Labor Food, H a r v e s t i n g Thresh ing H a r v e s t i n g

e t c . Share Fee Thresh ing Fee

H a r v e s t i n g and &lvan 1 t h r e s h i n g f o r San Andres 1 a s h a r e Bun01 8

D a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g San Andres 3 11 3

Small t h r e s h e r Bun01 2 138 11 f o r a f e e

Exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g

Smal l t h r e s h e r f o r a f e e San Andres 2

lowest a t 1171, broken down i n t o P25.00 c o s t of food and

1146 f o r t h r e s h e r f e e . Aside from t h e f a c t t h a t f a m i l y and

exchange l a b o r were n o t aid, y i e l d s were lowes t i n San Andres

a t 1941 kg/ha .

What needs t o be h i g h l i g h t e d i s t h e f a c t t h a t among

e x i s t i n g c h o i c e s , t h e low c o s t one was n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e

most p o p u l a r . For example, i n San Andres , o n l y two fa rmers

u t i l i z e d exchange l a b o r i n h a r v e s t i n g i n combinat ion wi th a

small t h r e s h e r d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e method was cheapes t .

S i x r e s p o n d e n t s pa id h a r v e s t e r s a d a i l y wage and McCormick

t h r e s h e r s a 6% f e e f o r a t o t a l c o s t of 1302 lha . Again i n

Galvan, t h e a v e r a g e c o s t f o r manual h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

was ~ 3 2 9 / h a bu t o n l y one responden t s adop ted t h e sys tem.

The remain ing twelve used McCormick t :hreshers f o r such r e a s o n s

a s f a s t e r o p e r a t i o n s , b e t t e r management of t h r e s h e d paddy,

need f o r s t a l k s f o r animal f e e d . I n Bunol, t h e more popu la r

ar rangement was h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g f o r a s h a r e . S i n c e

pump i r r i g a t i o n f a c i l i t a t e s a second c r o p of r i c e , t h e r e was

u s u a l l y no t ime t o wa i t f o r McCormick t h r e s h e r s . The

arrangement was expected t o be p r a c t i c e d even i f t h e a r e a

b e i n g pump-i r r igated has been f a s t d i m i n i s h i n g due t o t h e

p r o h i b i t i v e c o s t of f u e l .

Modif ica t ions Desired f o r Each Arrangement

P a r t i c i p a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s . Table 10 shows t h a t about

one f o u r t h of t h e farmer respondents d i d n o t want any change

a s t o who should p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

a c t i v i t i e s .

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , n i n e t y p e r c e n t wanted changes

and advanced f o u r k inds of r e s t r i c t i . o n s d e s i r e d . Thirty-one

percen t wanted t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n be extended on ly t o t h o s e

who r e n d e r e x t r a s e r v i c e . The same number wanted i t t o be

conf ined t o workers who a r e from i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e . S t i l l ,

1 7 % wanted a more r e s t r i c t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s e n s e t h a t

they wanted on ly t h e i r r e l a t i v e s t o be a l lowed t o t a k e p a r t i n

the h a r v e s t i n g jobs . Eleven p e r c e n t of t h e farmers were more

concerned about l i m i t i n g t h e number, r a t h e r than t h e k ind of

workers t h a t they could accommodate.

The 46 farmers from t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s mentioned on ly

two changes p e r t a i n i n g t o workers ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n . They e i t h e r

wanted t h a t workers render e x t r a s e r v i c e o r t h a t on ly i n s i d e

v i 1 l a g e r s be a 1 lowed t o h a r v e s t . The p r o p o s i t i o n t o l i m i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o t h o s e who would

render e x t r a s e r v i c e s t o t h e farmer employers h a s two l o g i c a l

Table 10. Changes i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n of workers d e s i r e d by h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

HARVESTING-THRESH1 N G ARRANGEMENT

A B C D E F ALL TYPES

Number of farmers 54 18 11 10 5 2 100

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Limited t o i n s i d e v i l l a g e r s 31 61 9 60 40 5 0 39 Workers render e x t r a s e r v i c e s 31 6 9 10 40 22 Limi t t o r e l a t i v e s ! 7 9 Limi t number of workers 11 6 None 10 3 3 82 30 20 50 2 4

bases . One, t h o s e fa rmers a r e aware of t h e e x i s t e n c e of such

p r a c t i c e s i n o t h e r p l a c e s . The most common of t h e s e i s t h e

"gama" sys tem now p r a c t i c e d i n most p a r t s of t h e n e i g h b o r i n g

p rov ince of Bulacan i n t h e s o u t h . I n t h i s p r a c t i c e , workers

who would weed t h e farm p l o t s f o r f r e e e a r n t h e r i g h t t o

h a r v e s t t h e same p l o t s . Second, t h i s i s a n e x p r e s s i o n of t h e

d e s i r e t o d e c r e a s e t h e payments g iven t o workers , by a d d i n g

more work f o r t h e same pay.

The d e s i r e t o l i m i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o i n s i d e v i l l a g e s o r

t o r e l a t i v e s on ly and /o r t h e i r number i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e

abundance of l a b o r supp ly e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s . Under t h e ar rangement where manual h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g i s pa id a s h a r e i n k ind (Code D) 60% of t h e fa rmers

e x p r e s s e d t h e d e s i r e t o accommodate on ly i n s i d e v i l l a g e r s .

The arrangement is conf ined mos t ly i n Bun01 where pump

i r r i g a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e . I n a ' cond i t ion where most of t h e

s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a s a r e not p l a n t e d t o r i c e , t h e tendency f o r

workers i n t h e s e a r e a s i s t o move t o t h o s e v i l l a g e s where

h a r v e s t i n g jobs a r e a v a i l a b l e . Thus, t h e problem of

c o m p e t i t i o n between i n s i d e v i l l a g e r s and t h o s e from o u t s i d e .

S p e c i a l ar rangements l i k e t h e "gama" sys tem i s one way of

e l i m i n a t i n g o u t s i d e r s from t h e h a r v e s t i n g jobs . S i n c e t h e

e x t r a s e r v i c e demanded i s u s u a l l y i n t h e p re -ha rves t phase

of r i c e p r o d u c t i o n , peop le o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e cannot

p a r t i c i p a t e .

Changes i n t h e r a t e s of payment. I t a p p e a r s t h a t f o r

most f a r m e r s , t h e p r e s e n t l e v e l s of wages and s h a r i n g r a t e s

f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g a r e f a i r enough. This is

expressed by 70% of t h e farmers who wanted no change i n r a t e s

of payment f o r t h e sys tems they a r e u s i n g (Tab le 11). Only

10% wanted a r e d u c t i o n i n r a t e s . Three o t h e r i t ems r e l a t e d t o

t h e payment r a t e s were mentioned by t h e remain ing 20% of t h e

fa rmers .

I r r i g a t e d farmers who pa id bo th h a r v e s t e r s and s h a r e s i n

terms of p a l a y wanted t h a t t h e s h a r i n g r a t e s a g r e e d upon be

enforced s t r i c t l y . Farmers complained t h a t a 1 though a c e r t a i n

s h a r i n g r a t e has been e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e workers g e t e x t r a

s h a r e s because d u r i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of s h a r e s , workers

asked fa rmers f o r e x t r a paddy, u s u a l l y a s k i n g f o r whatever

paddy i s l e f t on t h e heap a f t e r s h a r i n g .

There were some farmers who complained t h a t workers

a sked f o r e x t r a f a v o r s once they have s t a r t e d o p e r a t i o n s . For

example, when ambulant food vendors who a c c e p t paddy a s

payment f o r t h e i r wares a r r i v e i n t h e f i e l d s t h e y a r e working

o n , t h e y would a s k fa rmers t o t h r e s h a n amount of paddy t h a t

could pay t h e food i t em they bought. Three t h i n g s abou t t h i s

p r a c t i c e a r e worth ment ioning. F i r s t , paddy i s p r i c e d much

Table 11. Changes i n the r a t e and mode of payment by harves t ing- thresh ing arrangements, 100 farmers , Nueva Eci ja , 1982.

I TEM HARVESTINGTHRESHING ARRANGEMENT

A B C D E F ALL TYPES

Number of farmers 54 18 11 10 5 2 100

pe rcen t r e p o r t i n g

Changes i n r a t e s : No change 7 6 50 3 7 90 100 100 7 0 Eecrease r a t e 6 28 18 1 G S t r i c t s h a r i n g be enforced 12 18 9 Uniform r a t e s be followed 17 27 10 7 No e x t r a favor 6 5 4

Mode of payment:

No change Be i n cash Be i n kind

lower t h a n t h e p r e v a i l i n g paddy rice. Second, t h i s amount i s

never t aken i n t o accoun t when d i s t r i b u t i o n of s h a r e s i s done.

D e f i n i t e l y , t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e h a r v e s t i s a l o s s on t h e p a r t

of t h e farmer . Fur the rmore , t h i s paddy forms p a r t of what

Takahashi c a l l e d "shadow c i r c l e " , a p o r t i o n of t h e h a r v e s t n o t

r e p o r t e d by farmer p roducers and t h e r e f o r e no t accoun ted f o r

i n p r o d u c t i o n e s t i m a t e s .

Farmers who pa id d a i l y wages f o r h a r v e s t i n g wanted t h a t

uniform r a t e s be fo l lowed s o t h a t t h e r e would n o t be t o o much

c o m p e t i t i o n f o r l a b o r e r s . A s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , t h e r e i s

g e n e r a l l y a s h o r t a g e of l a b o r i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s even a t

h a r v e s t t ime. S ince h i r e d l a b o r e r s a r e few, f a rmers o f f e r e d

wages h i g h e r than t h e r a t e s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r

season s o a s t o a t t r a c t l a b o r e r s t o work f o r them. This

p r a c t i c e is u n f a i r t o t h e p o o r e r f a rmers who do n o t have

enough cash to pay higher wages. Competition l eaves poor

farmers t o u t i l i z e f ami ly l a b o r .

Mode o f payment. Except f o r one, a l l t h e i r r i g a t e d

farmers wanted t o r e t a i n t h e sys tem of payment i n k ind f o r

machine and l a b o r . Farmers who pa id h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

i n k i n d a r e d i v i d e d i n t h i s r e s p e c t - h a l f wanted no change,

t h e r e s t wanted t o s h i f t payment from k ind t o cash forms. The

o t h e r four arrangements i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s i n c l u d e t h e

use of t h e l a r g e McCormick o r t h e smal l IRRI-designed t h r e s h e r

t o g e t h e r w i t h d a i l y wages and /or exchange l a b o r i n h a r v e s t i n g .

I n a l l of t h e s e a r rangements , m a j o r i t y of t h e farmers wanted

t h a t payment f o r t h e t h r e s h e r s be aid i n cash j u s t l i k e f o r

l and p r e p a r a t i o n machines. Farmers b e l i e v e d t h a t i f t h e y pay

a d e f i n i t e t h r e s h i n g f e e i n cash and s e l l t h e paddy t h a t would

o t h e r w i s e have been paid f o r u s i n g t h e t h r e s h e r s , t h e y w i l l be

a b l e t o save . They remarked t h a t t h r e s h e r owners made a l o t

of money i n t r a d i n g t h e paddy c o l l e c t e d a s t h r e s h e r f e e s .

Dynamics o f Labor A l l o c a t i o n and O r g a n i z a t i o n

D i s t r i b u t i o n of workers by t y p e , age and sex . Har-

v e s t e r s were e i t h e r a pure l a n d l e s s worker , a small farmed-

h i r e d l a b o r e r o r a c h i l d of e i t h e r type . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s , t h e p r o p o r t i o n of workers who a r e of t h e l a n d l e s s

o r i g i n remained a t 56 percen t b e f o r e and a f t e r mechan iza t ion

of t h r e s h i n g (Table 1 2 ) . I n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , however,

t h e r e was a n i n c r e a s e of l a n d l e s s workers who worked a s

Table 12. Changes i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of workers by t y p e , a g e and s e x , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM IRRIGATED RAINFED

P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

Worker t y p e Pure l a n d l e s s l a b o r 45 4 7 25 2 1 Child of l a n d l e s s l a b o r 11 9 8 4 Small farmer-hired

l a b o r e r 24 30 5 3 61 Child of s m a l l f a n n e r 20 14 14 14

Tota l

Age l e v e l s Below 15 15 t o 30 31 t o 50 Over 50

T o t a l

Sex - Ma1 e Fema 1 e

- - - Tota l 100 100 100 100

h a r v e s t e r s compared t o s m a l l f a rmer -h i red l a b o r e r s o r t h e i r

c h i l d r e n .

There was a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n of women and

younger c h i l d r e n who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

o p e r a t i o n s bo th i n t h e i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e d a r e a s . Under t h e

'hampasan' method employed b e f o r e i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , more

than 80% of t h e l a b o r e r s were men and on ly one p e r c e n t were

c h i l d r e n younger than 15 y e a r s . A t p r e s e n t under t h e s m a l l

t h r e s h e r technology i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , c h i l d

~ a r t i c i ~ a t i o n r o s e from one p e r c e n t t o 8% w h i l e female l a b o r

i n c r e a s e d from 18% t o 36%. Consequent ly , t h e p r o p o r t i o n of

male workers dec reased t o 64%. An e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s

o b s e r v a t i o n is t h a t c u t t i n g , b u n d l i n g and h a u l i n g of s t a l k s t o

t h e t h r e s h i n g s i t e combined wi th manual b e a t i n g of s t a l k s

a g a i n s t a wooden frame r e q u i r e d more p h y s i c a l s t r e n g t h than

women and younger workers p o s s e s s . Manual t h r e s h i n g , which i s

t h e most p h y s i c a l l y demanding t a s k , t a k e s up a b o u t 30% of t h e

t o t a l l a b o r r equ i rement under t h e manual "hampasan"

system.42. Women who composed l e s s t h a n 1 /5 of t h e workers

4 2 ~ o q u e r o , Z . , C. Maranan, L. Ebron and B. Duff. "Assess ing Q u a n t i t a t i v e and Q u a l i t a t i v e Losses i n R ice Pos t -P roduc t ion Sys tems . " A g r i c u l t u r a l Mechanizat ion i n Asia . Vol. V I I I , No. 3. Summer, 1977.

p a r t i c i p a t e d on ly i n t h e l i g h t e r t a s k s of c l e a n i n g o r

winnowing, measur ing and bagging t h r e s h e d paddy. u s i n g a

s m a l l t h r e s h e r , h a r v e s t i n g became a s e p a r a t e l y pa id t a s k from

t h r e s h i n g . H a r v e s t e r s on ly c u t and h a u l t h e s t a l k s t o a

n e a r e r t h r e s h i n g s i t e and h e l p o p e r a t o r s bag t h e t h r e s h e d

paddy.

I n the r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s where McCormick t h r e s h e r s were

used , 63% were men and f i v e p e r c e n t were c h i l d r e n . The

p r o p o r t i o n of c h i l d l a b o r e r s more than doubled from 5% t o 11%

i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s whi le men workers went down from 63% t o

o n l y 57%. The same p h y s i c a l l y demanding t a s k s of bund l ing ,

h a u l i n g and s t a c k i n g i n t o a s i n g l e "mandala" f o r one farm were

p r a c t i c e d i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s . These were more p h y s i c a l l y

s t r e n o u s s i n c e s t a l k s had t o be h a u l e d t o a f a r t h e r p l a c e

w i t h i n o r even o u t s i d e t h e farm. S t a c k s were o f t e n b u i l t n e a r

t h e r o a d s i d e which a r e g e n e r a l l y more e l e v a t e d than t h e farm

p l o t s and where t h e l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r can reach .

I n t h e s e c a s e s where t h e s h i f t was l a r g e l y from t h e l a r g e

t h r e s h e r s t o e i t h e r "hampasan" o r s m a l l t h r e s h e r method , t h e

i n c r e a s e i n c h i l d and women p a r t i c i p a t i o n cou ld be a t t r i b u t r e d

t o manual c l e a n i n g , measur ing and bagg ing of t h r e s h e d paddy

which now have t o be done by t h e same workers , t a s k s which a r e

u s u a l l y a s s i g n e d t o women and c h i l d r e n . Thre was a s t r i k i n g

occurence i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s t h a t d i d n o t happen i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s . This was t h e heavy o u t - m i g r a t i o n of young

workers t o t h e i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r . The i n d u s t r i e s w i t h i n t h e

Bataan Export P r o c e s s i n g Zone i n M a r i v e l e s , Bataan, a t t r a c t e d

a good number of young male and female workers from t h e two

v i l l a g e s of Bun01 and Galvan. Workers who l e f t San Andres , on

t h e o t h e r hand, were r e p o r t e d t o have gone t o t h e f a c t o r i e s of

R i z a l and Bulacan. This l e f t t h e t a s k of h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g t o m o s t l y t h e younger workers and women i n t h e a r e a .

These changes i n t h e composi t ion of l a b o r i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n

F i g u r e s 11 and 12.

Source of l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g . Under

t h e p r e s e n t and p a s t t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , l a b o r has

g e n e r a l l y been t aken from i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e . There a r e two

f e a t u r e s of t h i s g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n . F i r s t , fa rmers

e s t i m a t e d t h a t of t h e t o t a l l a b o r f o r c e i n h a r v e s t i n g , o n l y

15% and 10% r e s p e c t i v e l y a r e from o u t s i d e t h e i r own v i l l a g e s

b e f o r e and a f t e r changes i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

arrangement (Table 1 3 ) . Secondly , t h e r e were o n l y 29 of

farmer responden t s i n both a r e a s who a c t u a l l y h i r e d l a b o r e r s

from o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e s b e f o r e t h e change i n h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g arrangements and t h i s number was reduced t o 22 a f t e r

t h e change. I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , t h e p r o p o r t i o n

Before:

After :

Sex Age Levels

F i g u r e 11. Changes i n t h e composi t ion of l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s .

cl5 Before:

>50

After:

- Sex Age Levels TY pe

Figure 12 . Changes i n t h e composition of l a b o r f o r ha rves t i ng and th re sh ing , r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s .

Table 13. Changes i n t h e source of l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Ec i j a y 1982.

ITEM IRRIGATED RAI NFED

P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

T o t a l number of f a rmers 54 4 6

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

P r o p o r t i o n of l a b o r from:

I n s i d e v i l l a g e Outs ide v i l l a g e

T o t a l

Farms u s i n g l a b o r from o u t s i d e v i l l a g e

Farms n o t u s i n g l a b o r from o u t s i d e v i l l a g e

T o t a l

Table 1 3 ( c o n t i n u e d )

IRRIGATED RAINFED ITEM

P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

Reasons f o r u s i n g o u t s i d e l a b o r :

O u t s i d e workers jus t come

Lack of workers i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e

O u t s i d e workers a r e r e l a t i v e s

Farm s i t e n e a r o t h e r v i 1 l a g e s

Assurance of workers d u r i n g peak t imes

decreased t o a lmost one h a l f from 33% t o 18% though t h e r e was

a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e of two percen t i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s . The

d e c l i n e i n t he i r r i g a t e d a r e a s can be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e

i nc r ea sed a v a i l a b i l i t y of l a n d l e s s workers who have come t o

s e t t l e i n those a r e a s . The expansion of i r r i g a t i o n s e r v i c e s

f a c i l i t a t e d s imul taneous h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g over wide

a r e a s and t h i s l i m i t s t h e chances of h a r v e s t e r s i n one a r e a t o

move t o ano the r r i c e growing a r e a . Mechanical t h r e s h e r s has

shor tened t h e t h r e s h i n g per iod i n one p l a c e t h a t t r a n s i e n t

workers have ve ry l i t t l e o r no chance a t a l l t o c a t c h up wi th

h a r v e s t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n o t h e r p l ace s . I n t he r a i n f e d

a r e a s , t h e out-migrat ion of t h e p o t e n t i a l l a b o r f o r c e l e aves

t he farmers no cho ice but t o get workers o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e .

Based on t h e reasons g iven , i t appears t h a t farmers d i d

not r e a l l y choose workers o u t s i d e t h e i r own v i l l a g e s . The

most common reasons f o r h i r i n g l abo r from o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e

was t h a t t h e s e o u t s i d e workers j u s t come t o t h e v i l l a g e

without i n v i t a t i o n o r t h a t most of t h e o u t s i d e l a b o r e r s a r e

r e l a t i v e s l i v i n g i n o t h e r v i l l a g e s who come t o e a r n a l i v i n g

du r ing t he h a r v e s t i n g season. The farmers s imply could no t

r e f u s e them and sometimes, they were even given p r i o r i t y over

l o c a l workers. Two farmer-obtained workers who were

cons idered from o u t s i d e t h e i r v i l l a g e s because t h e i r farms

were s i t u a t e d i n t h e o u t e r p e r i p h e r i e s of t h e i r v i l l a g e s .

i n t h e o u t e r p e r i p h e r i e s of t h e i r v i l l a g e s . I t was o n l y

p r a c t i c a l f o r them t o g e t workers who a r e from nearby

v i l l a g e s . The l a c k of a v a i l a b l e workers i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e

d u r i n g peak p e r i o d s f o r c e d some fa rmers t o s e c u r e t h e much

needed l a b o r o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e s e s p e c i a l l y from a r e a s where

the h a r v e s t i n g d i d not c o i n c i d e w i t h t h a t of t h e i r own

v i l l a g e . There was one farmer each from t h e i r r i g a t e d and t h e

r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s who secured some workers o u t s i d e t h e i r

v i l l a g e s o n l y t o be s u r e t h a t they would have a v a i l a b l e

workers even i f t h e h a r v e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e

peak s e a s o n i n t h e i r own v i l l a g e s . I t seems t h e n , t h a t i n

g e n e r a l , t h e i n c i d e n c e of whether l o c a l o r o u t s i d e workers

were used f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g was n o t a m a t t e r of

c h o i c e b u t more of p r e s s u r e .

Reasons f o r h i r i n g l a b o r . H a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g a r e

two of t h e r i c e p r o d u c t i o n t a s k s where m o s t , i f n o t a l l o f t h e

l a b o r used has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y h i r e d l a b o r . Tab le 14 shows

t h a t t h e combinat ion of a c o n d i t i o n of i n s u f f i c i e n t a v a i l a b l e

f ami ly l a b o r and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t a s k s concerned a r e

time-bound, were major r e a s o n s why farmer responden t s h i r e d

l a b o r . Although t h e a v e r a g e s i z e of household i s 5.0

p e r s o n s , t h e r e a r e o n l y 2.5 members who were a v a i l a b l e f o r

Table 14. Reasons f o r h i r i n g l a b o r , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Ec i j a , 1982.

I R R I GATED RAINFED REASON

P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

Number of farmers 5 4 46

Rea s ons : p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

I n s u f f i c i e n t f a m i l y l a b o r 96

Tasks a r e time-bound 5 9 Thresh ing l a b o r provided

w i t h machine 33 Tasks a r e t i r i n g 54 P e r s o n a l d e s i r e t o

s h a r e 2 2 General p r a c t i c e 24 B e t t e r s u p e r v i s i o n 26 S o c i a l p r e s s u r e

t o s h a r e 17 A l t e r n a t i v e jobs

f o r f ami ly members 2

farm work on a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s . H a r v e s t i n g a l o n e r e q u i r e s

about 15 man-days p e r h e c t a r e , s o t h a t i t w i l l t a k e a lmost

one week f o r t h e a v e r a g e f a m i l y t o f i n i s h h a r v e s t i n g . When

h a r v e s t i n g i s extended over a l o n g p e r i o d , t h e r i s k of

u n c e r t a i n wea the r , c rop damage and s p o i l a g e i n c r e a s e s . These

o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what Smith and Gascon

r e p o r t e d t o be t h e major f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g a f a m i l y ' s

c a p a c i t y t o f i n i s h a t a s k w i t h i n t h e s p e c i f i e d days: t h e p e r

farm l a b o r r equ i rements f o r t h e t a s k s , t ime span d u r i n g which

i t must be completed and fami ly s i z e . 43 H a j o r i t y of t h e

farmers i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s f i n d h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

t o be t e d i o u s t a s k s f o r themselves t o perform. There was o n l y

one f a n n e r from t h e r a i n f e d a r e a who had t h e same f e e l i n g . A

c o r o l l a r y r e a s o n f o r h i r i n g l a b o r i s t o e n a b l e them t o b e t t e r

s u p e r v i s e t h e workers . The p e r s o n a l d e s i r e of farm o p e r a t o r s

t o s h a r e t h e i r r i c e h a r v e s t wi th v i l l a g e r s was more e v i d e n t

among r a i n f e d fa rmers than t h e i r i r r i g a t e d c o u n t e r p a r t s . This

is p a r t l y due t o t h e f a r m e r s ' awareness t h a t wi th o n l y one

r i c e c rop a y e a r , they have on ly one o p p o r t u n i t y t o s h a r e and

t h e h a r v e s t e r s have o n l y one chance t o p a r t a k e of t h e i r

4 3 ~ . Smith and F. Gascon. The E f f e c t s of t h e New Rice Technology on Family Labor U t i l i z a t i o n i n ~ a g u n a . I R R I Sa tu rday Seminar Paper . August 1 1 , 1979.

crop. Aside from t h e p e r s o n a l d e s i r e t o s h a r e t h e i r

r e s o u r c e s , t h e r e i s a l s o a s o c i a l p r e s s u r e t o s h a r e w i t h t h o s e

who have l e s s o r none of what they have. The s o c i a l p r e s s u r e

i s g r e a t e r i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s . A s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r ,

t h e r e had been an o u t m i g r a t i o n of young workers from t h e

r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s . Seventeen p e r c e n t of t h e r a i n f e d fa rmers

r e p o r t e d h i r i n g l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g because t h e i r f ami ly

members had o t h e r jobs d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g i n t h e i r own

v i l l a g e s . I n summary, t h e reasons enumerated a r e not

d i f f e r e n t from t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s of C a s t i l l o r e g a r d i n g t h e l a c k

of r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e n u r e and t h e u s e of h i r e d l a b o r . 44

P r e f e r e n c e f o r a v a i l a b l e f a m i l y l a b o r . M a j o r i t y of t h e

responden t s s t i l l p r e f e r e d t o u s e h i r e d l a b o r no m a t t e r how

s m a l l t h e s i z e of t h e i r farms a r e o r even i f a v a i l a b l e f a m i l y

l a b o r is s u f f i c i e n t t o perform t h e t a s k s of h a r v e s t i n g and

threshing i n an e f f i c i e n t manner. Table 15 showed t h a t more

than t h r e e - f o u r t h s of t h e fa rmers from bo th s i t e s d i d n o t

f a v o r h a r v e s t i n g u s i n g o n l y f a m i l y l a b o r .

The pe r sona1 and v o l u n t a r y d e s i r e t o s h a r e o n e ' s

r e s o u r c e s o r g i v e o t h e r s a chance t o s u r v i v e was t h e

4 4 ~ . T. C a s t i l l o , l o c . c i t .

Table 15. Farmers ' p r e f e r e n c e t o u s e o n l y a v a i l a b l e f a m i l y l a b o r i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , 6 v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM IRRIGATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers 54 46 100 Farmers who w i l l h a r v e s t o n l y

wi th fami ly l a b o r : p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Yes No

Reasons f o r - Yes: I n c r e a s e income/save

expenses Avoid problems w i t h

l a b o r e r s Reasons f o r No:

~ e s i r e t o s h a r e P r a c t i c e not s o c i a l l y

approved i n t h e v i l l a g e Do no t want farm work f o r

c h i l d r e n Can h a r v e s t i n o t h e r farms H a r v e s t i n g i s a t i r i n g job

predominant r e a s o n c i t e d . This h e l p was o f f e r e d t o both

r e l a t i v e s and n o n - r e l a t i v e s . This i s one of t h e f o u r ways of

m a i n t a i n i n g a " h e l p i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p ' ' 45 o r a t t e m p t i n g t o

r e d i s t r i b u t e income between farmer o p e r a t o r s and l a n d l e s s

workers who a r e r e l a t i v e s and l i v e n e a r one a n o t h e r . A s

i l l u s t r a t e d i n Tables 16 and 17 m a j o r i t y of t h e workers were

r e l a t i v e s of t h e farmer o p e r a t o r s . Others y i e l d e d o n l y t o t h e

v i 1 l a g e p r e s s u r e t o a l l o w ne ighbors and f r i e n d s t o h a r v e s t i n

t h e i r farm s i n c e t h e p r a c t i c e of u s i n g o n l y f a m i l y l a b o r f o r

h a r v e s t i n g i f h i r e d l a b o r was a v a i l a b l e was n o t s o c i a l l y

approved i n r i c e farming v i l l a g e s . There i s t h e r e f o r e , a n

essence of conformity s o t h a t even i.f f a rmers wanted t o u s e

on ly fami ly l a b o r , t h e y s t i l l h i r e l a b o r e r s . About o n e - t h i r d

of t h e farmers i n i r r i g a t e d a r e a s would n o t h a r v e s t w i t h t h e i r

f ami ly because they do n o t want farm work f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n .

Ten p e r c e n t were mot iva ted by t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t i n c a s e of

c rop f a i l u r e s i n t h e i r own fa rms , t h e same f a v o r of g i v i n g

o t h e r f a rmers h a r v e s t i n g jobs would be g i v e n t o them. Farmers

who have s m a l l farms extended t h e f a v o r s o t h a t they w i l l a l s o

be welcomed t o h a r v e s t i n o t h e r f i e l d s . I n t h i s c o n t e x t , we

4 5 ~ . T. C a s t i l l o , i b i d . p. 96.

Table 16. A p r o f i l e of h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r f o r a 0.5 ha. i r r i g a t e d fa rm, Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

WORKER CODE SEX AGE RELATIONSHIP WITH FARMER TYPE OF WORKER

Fema 1 e Male Male Fema l e Male Male Male Ma 1 e Male Ma 1 e Fema 1 e Male

W i f e ' s s i s t e r i n law Wife ' s c o u s i n None None Niece None Wife ' s c o u s i n Cousin W i f e ' s c o u s i n None None None

Farmer ' s w i f e Farmer Landless Wife o f l a n d l e s s Fa rmer ' s s o n Land less ' s o n Farmer ' s s o n Farmer ' s s o n Farmer ' s s o n Landless Land less ' w i f e Landless ' son

Table 17. A p r o f i l e of h a r v e s t i n g labor f o r a 2.0 ha. r a i n f e d farm, Guimba, 1982.

WORKER CODE SEX AGE RELATION WITH FARMER TYPE OF WORKER

Male

Ma1 e

Fema 1 e

Male

Elale

Ma1 e

Male

Male

Male

Son

Son

Wife

Neighbor

Neighbor

Wife 's n i ece

Brother

None

None

Farmer's son

Farmer's son

Farmer's wi fe

Fa rme r

Farmer's son

Farmer's son

Fa rme r

Landless

Farmer

can r e g a r d t h e s e measures a s a form of a n " insurance" i n t h e

former c a s e and a n " investment" i n t h e l a t t e r c a s e .

Farmers ' a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g . There is a -

marked d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e way fa rmers from t h e two s i t e s s p e n t

t h e i r t ime w h i l e h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g were b e i n g done i n

t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f i e l d s . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d two-cropped fa rms ,

a lmos t a l l f a rmers do n o t h i n g but s u p e r v i s e t h e h a r v e s t e r s and

t h r e s h e r s w i t h on ly a few farmers j o i n i n g t h e h i r e d workers

(Table 1 8 ) . The o b s e r v a t i o n ho lds t r u e f o r t h e p r e s e n t

mechanical t h r e s h e r sys tem and t h e e a r l i e r manual 'hampasan'

method. Such a c t i v i t i e s l i k e p r e p a r i n g t h e t h r e s h i n g m a t s ,

sacks and t i e s were p a r t of t h e s u p e r v i s i o n t a s k .

I n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , abou t two- th i rds of t h e

o p e r a t o r s formed p a r t of t h e l a b o r f o r c e i n h a r v e s t i n g . This

happened because of t h e g e n e r a l l a c k of l a b o r i n t h e r a i n f e d

v i l l a g e s e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g t h e peak seasons of h a r v e s t i n g . I n

most c a s e s , i t was n o t on ly t h e farmer b u t a l l p h y s i c a l l y a b l e

members of t h e household who he lped when no h i r e d l a b o r could

be found.

Tab le 18. Fa rmers ' p a s t and p r e s e n t a c t i v i t i e s w h i l e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g i s done on t h e i r f a r m s , 100 f a r m s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

IRRIGATED RAI NFE D

P r e s e n t Be fo re P r e s e n t B e f o r e

Number of f a r m e r s 5 4 46

A c t i v i t i e s p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

S u p e r v i s e 8 5 89 28 3 3 J o i n worke r s 11 9 70 6 5 Engage i n o t h e r farm

job 2 2 2 Engage i n non-farm

job 2 2

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , t h e r e was one f a rmer who

assumed a d i f f e r e n t r o l e d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g b e c a u s e he bacame a

t h r e s h e r o p e r a t o r when a f a n n e r owner bought a mechan ica l

t h r e s h e r f o r h i s farm f o r custom t h r e s h i n g . The re was a n o t h e r

fa rmer who had been engaged i n b u y i n g and s e l l i n g paddy and

c o n t i n u e d i n t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s even i f h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

were b e i n g done i n h i s f i e l d . He c o u l d a f f o r d t o do i t

because he had a permanent l a b o r e r i n h i s farm. An e l d e r l y

f a rmer i n t h e i r r i g a t e d s i t e g razed h i s c a r a b a o a s h i s s o n

s u p e r v i s e d h i s farm d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g .

The f a c t t h a t o n l y a h a n d f u l of f a rmers were e i t h e r

engaged i n o t h e r farm o r non-farm jobs s u g g e s t s e i t h e r of two

t h i n g s . One, t h a t t h e r e were no o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s u c h o t h e r

farm o r non-farm jobs even i f t h e y want them. Second, i t o n l y

showed t h e f a r m e r s ' i n t e r e s t i n h i s own farm e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e

t ime of h a r v e s t i n g .

De te rmina t ion o f normal r a t e s f o r h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g . Table 19 shows how t h e normal r a t e s f o r

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g were u s u a l l y determined i n each s i t e .

H a r v e s t i n g r a t e s i n t h e i r r i g a t e d s i t e s used t o be based

mos t ly on e i t h e r t h e e x i s t i n g r a t e s i n a d j a c e n t a r e a s o r t h e

r a t e s i n p rev ious y e a r s . I n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s , normal r a t e s

of payments depended much on i n d i v i d u a l f a rmers who d e c i d e how

much t o g ive t o t h e workers . This was p r a c t i c e d by 58% of t h e

responden t s i n t h e a r e a . S i x t e e n p e r c e n t each based t h e i r

r a t e s e i t h e r on e x i s t i n g r a t e s t h e y knew were pa id i n a d j a c e n t

r i c e v i l l a g e s o r t h e r a t e s i n p r e v i o u s y e a r s . Under t h e

p r e s e n t s y s t e m s , t h e p i c t u r e is d i f f e r e n t . The p r a c t i c e of

farmers of h o l d i n g v i l l a g e meet ings f o r t h e purpose of s e t t i n g

t h e r a t e s t o be pa id had i n c r e a s e d . There were o n l y s i x

p e r c e n t i n t h e i r r i g a t e d and 16% i n t h e r a i n f e d s i t e s who

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i s was t h e p r a c t i c e fol.lowed b e f o r e t h e

Table 19. P a s t and p r e s e n t means of d e t e r m i n i n g t h e normal r a t e s i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , 6 v i l l a g e s , Nueva Eci j a y 1982.

IRRIGATED RAINFED

P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

I. H a r v e s t i n g E x i s t i n g r a t e s a s i n

a d j a c e n t a r e a s Farmers meet t o s e t c u r r e n t r a t e Depends on i n d i v i d u a l f a n n e r s Same a s i n p rev ious years D i c t a t e d by l a n d l o r d

a 11. Thresh ing

E x i s t i n g r a t e s a s i n a d j a c e n t a r e a s Machine owners s e t r a t e s Same a s i n p rev ious yea r s Farmers meet t o s e t c u r r e n t r a t e s

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

a S i n c e t h e ' b e f o r e ' system i n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s i s combined manual

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , the manner i s j o i n t l y accoun ted under h a r v e s t i n g .

p e r c e n t a g e r o s e t o 44% and 71% i n t h e i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e d

a r e a s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . There a r e a number of r e a s o n s t h a t can

be advanced t o e x p l a i n t h i s change i n p r a c t i c e . I n t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , f a rmers and workers had t o meet because a new

technology w i t h a complete s e t of new arrangements would be

adopted. Also , the h igh c o s t of p r o d u c t i o n , bo th cash and

non-cash, made fa rmers more consc ious of how much t h e y had t o

spend t o c a r r y o u t a l l p r o d u c t i o n o p e r a t i o n s . Second ly , s i n c e

i n p u t and product p r i c e s do not remain s t a b l e f o r long

p e r i o d s , t h e r e came a need f o r farm o p e r a t o r s and farm workers

t o meet and s e t t l e farm wages, e i t h e r t h e cash o r in-kind

payments.

I n one of t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , such k ind of mee t ing i s

r e g u l a r l y convened by t h e v i l l a g e head about t h r e e t o four

weeks b e f o r e t h e s t a r t of t h e h a r v e s t i n g season . A l l f a rmers

and farm workers a r e i n v i t e d t o t h e mee t ing . The u s u a l d a i l y

wage r a t e a r r i v e d a t i s a l i t t l e l e s s than 150 p e r c e n t of t h e

c u r r e n t p r i c e of a gan ta of r i c e . A t t h e t ime t h i s s u r v e y was

conducted, t h e p r i c e of r i c e was B7.00 t o B7.50 a gan ta

s o t h e p r e v a i l i n g wage r a t e was P1O.OO p e r day.

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , m a j o r i t y r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e

fa rmers and workers met on ly once when t h e s m a l l mechanical

t h r e s h e r s came i n t o wide use . There had been no subsequen t

meet ing c a l l e d f o r the purpose of s e t t l i n g r a t e s of payment i n

h a r v e s t i n g .

F a c t o r s t h a t a l t e r normal r a t e s of payment. Although

p r e v a i l i n g r a t e s have been determined f o r a p a r t i c u l a r season ,

d i f f e r e n t r a t e s f o r t h e same per iod and p l a c e could be o f f e r e d

by farmers o r rece ived by workers.

I n the r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , n e a r l y a l l farmers mentioned

t h a t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of workers was one f a c t o r why such a

t h i n g happened, p r e s e n t l y and i n t h e p a s t ra able 20). The

f requenc ies were much lowered i n t he i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s ,

amounting t o on ly 41% and 30%. This can be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e

f a c t t h a t t h e r e had been a gene ra l l a c k of l a b o r i n t he

r a i n f e d p l a c e s , a f a c t t h a t i s f u r t h e r suppor ted by Table 20

where 85% of the farmers exper ienced a l a c k of workers d u r i n g

h a r v e s t i n g pe r i ods . Only 30% of the i r r i g a t e d farmers

repor ted t h e same problem.

The peak and l e an per iods of h a r v e s t i n g is of g r e a t

concern i n t he r a i n f e d a r e a s because of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of

water pumps i n some farms. Farmers who could grow a second

crop of r i c e could o f f e r payments much lower than t he normal

r a t e s and s t i l l f i n d enough workers. The high c o s t of pump

i r r i g a t i o n l i m i t s t he number of farmers who can p l a n t ano the r

r i c e crop. Weather was not a f a c t o r i n t he r a i n f e d a r e a s

because most of t h e h a r v e s t i n g i s done d u r i n g the d ry months.

Table 20. F a c t o r s t h a t can a l t e r t h e normal r a t e s of payment o r s h a r i n g f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , 100 f a r m s , Nueva E c i j a , 1983.

I R R I GATED RAINFED

P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

T o t a l number of f a rmers 54 46

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Fac t o r s :

A v a i l a b i l i t y of workers 41 30 9 1 Crop c o n d i t i o n 7 2 30 3 7 Urgency of s e r v i c e 2 2 15 56 ~ e a k / l e a n p e r i o d s 17 11 20 Weather 3 7 9 S o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s 6 6 A v a i l a b i l i t y of machines 6 6

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , c r o p c o n d i t i o n was mentioned

by 72% of t h e responden t s a s a f a c t o r t h a t can a l t e r r a t e s of

payment. When t h e r i c e c r o p was h e a v i l y damaged by p e s t s o r

d i s e a s e s o r was lodged , workers u s u a l l y demanded h i g h e r pays.

I n some c a s e s , they comple te ly t u r n e d down o f f e r s f o r

h a r v e s t i n g jobs when c r o p s were h e a v i l y damaged knowing w e l l

t h a t f o r t h e same o r even more amount of l a b o r , they would g e t

l e s s because t h e y i e l d f o r such c rops would n a t u r a l l y be low.

Weather was an impor tan t f a c t o r s i n c e t h e h a r v e s t i n g pe r iod

f o r t h e d r y season r i c e c r o p i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s o c c u r s

d u r i n g t h e r a i n y months.

Methods o f c o n t a c t i n g workers . Unl ike i n

t r a n s p l a n t i n g , l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g under p r e s e n t and p a s t

sys tems has been o b t a i n e d by d e a l i n g d i r e c t l y w i t h i n d i v i d u a l

workers a s shown i n Table 21. The same manner of c o n t a c t i n g

workers was p r e v a l e n t i n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i 1 l a g e s under t h e

I 1 hampas" s y s tem where t h e h a r v e s t e r s were a l s o t h e t h r e s h e r s .

There were on ly t h r e e i s o l a t e d c a s e s where fa rmers c o n t a c t

l a n d l e s s f a m i l i e s i n s t e a d of i n d i v i d u a l s .

I n t h e s m a l l mechanical t h r e s h e r - u s i n g v i l l a g e s , h a l f of

the fa rmers c o n t a c t e i t h e r a g e n t s o r machine o p e r a t o r s because

they were s e e n on t h e farms more o f t e n than t h e owner.

Farmers went t o machine o p e r a t o r s f o r r e s e r v a t i o n o r n o t i c e t o

use t h e t h r e s h e r w h i l e t h r e s h e r a g e n t s approached fa rmers t o

o f f e r t h e s e r v i c e s of t h e i r machines. One f o u r t h of t h e

farmers chose t o d e a l on ly wi th t h e machine owners who a r e

l i k e l y t o be r e s i d e n t s of t h e v i l l a g e . The remain ing one

f o u r t h d i d not show any p a r t i c u l a r p r e f e r e n c e a s t o whom t o

Tab le 21. Method of c o n t a c t f o r workers i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E C ~ j a , 1983.

ITEM IRRIGATED RAINFED

P r e s e n t Befo re P r e s e n t Befo re

T o t a l number of f a r m e r s 54

Method of c o n t a c t f o r h a r v e s t i n g

D i r e c t l y w i t h i n d i v i d u a l workers

Through groups Combination 1 and 2

Method of s o n t a c t f o r t h r e s h i n g :

D i r e c t l y w i t h i n d i v i d u a l workers

Through a g e n t s / o p e r a t o r s

Machine owners Machine owners and /

or agents and

operators

a S i n c e a l l t h e ' b e f o r e ' c a s e s i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a i s

combined h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , i t i s coun ted under h a r v e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n .

c o n t a c t . They c o n t a c t e i t h e r t h e a g e n t , t h e o p e r a t o r o r t h e

owner, whoever they encoun te r f i r s t any t ime they need a

machine.

M e t h o d s o f . There i s a marked

c o n t r a s t i n t h e way t h e b u l k of t h e h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r i s

o b t a i n e d i n t h e r a i n f e d and i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s . Table 22

shows t h a t i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s , two- th i rds of t h e l a b o r used

i n h a r v e s t i n g had t o be r e c r u i t e d by t h e farmer-employers.

Th i s p r o p o r t i o n was l e s s than 10% i n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s

where two-thi rds of t h e l a b o r e r s i n h a r v e s t i n g had t o p r e s e n t

themselves t o t h e fa rmers f o r h a r v e s t i n g jobs and abou t 22%

were r e g u l a r workers . The p r o p o r t i o n r e p o r t e d i s a r e f l e c t i o n

of t h e l a b o r s i t u a t i o n i n each s i t e . Where most of t h e

workers had t o o f f e r t h e i r s e r v i c e s t o a n employer a s i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , a n e x c e s s of workers cou ld be impl ied . On

t h e c o n t r a r y , when on ly a few l a b o r e r s p r e s e n t e d themselves

f o r work and t h e fa rmers had t o s c o u t f o r t h e b i g g e r p o r t i o n

t h a t he needed, a s c a r c i t y of h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r i s deno ted . As

i n d i c a t e d from t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s , t h e l a c k of

h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r was confirmed f o r t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s .

I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s . There were s i x ways fa rmers knew

who cou ld be a v a i l a b l e t o work f o r him i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g and

Table 22. Methods of o b t a i n i n g workers f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , 100 f a r m e r s , 6 v i l l a g e s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

I R R I GATED RAI NFED

METHOD P r e s e n t Before P r e s e n t Before

Number of workers 54 46

Methods of o b t a i n i n g workers

Farmer s c o u t f o r workers 9 9 67

Workers p r e s e n t themselves 67 67 20

Regular workers 22 22 1 3 Agents o f f e r s e r v i c e 2 2

t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s . As shown i n Table 2 3 , f i f t y - n i n e

p e r c e n t of t h e farmers r e p o r t e d t h a t they themselves would

i n c i d e n t a l l y meet some l a b o r e r s i n t h e v i l l a g e and a s c e r t a i n

t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y on t h e schedu led h a r v e s t i n g days . Farmers

who l i v e d nearby could t e l l t h e i r neighbor fa rmers who could

be h i r e d o r they could be t h e ones who cou ld t e l l l a b o r e r s who

Table 23. Sources of i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o r performance of workers i n t h e v i l l a g e , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

SOURCE I R R I WTED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers 54 46 100

A v a i l a b l e workers i n t h e v i l l a g e r e p o r t i n g

Farmer h imse l f Farmers neighbor Workers themselves Foremenla g e n t s Other workers Permanent worker

Performance of workers :

Farmer h imse l f Farmers n e i ghbor Permanent worker

p e r c e n t

among t h e farmers would h a r v e s t on c e r t a i n days . I n many

i n s t a n c e s , though l e s s i n t h e r a i n f e d t h a n i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s , workers went t o f a r m e r s ' houses t o a s k f o r t h e i r

h a r v e s t i n g s c h e d u l e s . Other minor s o u r c e s inc luded foremen o r

a g e n t s , o t h e r workers o r t h e f a r m e r s ' permanent workers .

I r r i g a t e d farmers r e l i e d a lmos t s o l e l y on t h e i r own

assessment of workers ' p a s t performance. Rainfed farmers

combined t h e i r own and t h o s e of t h e i r ne ighbors i n e v a l u a t i n g

how w e l l workers performed. This e v a l u a t i o n somehow s e r v e d a s

b a s i s i n s e l e c t i n g who among t h e workers w i l l be g iven

h a r v e s t i n g jobs .

A d a p t a t i o n t o Problem S i t u a t i o n s

Harves t ing i s t h e most important and h a p p i e s t per iod i n

t h e r i c e p r o d u c t i o n p rocess from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of

landowners , f a r m e r s , and l a b o r e r s . I t is t h e t ime t h a t t h e

bounty which is t h e product of l a n d , l a b o r , and c a p i t a l , and

management put i n t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s a l l t h e way from

land p r e p a r a t i o n i s reaped and d i s t r i b u t e d among t h e r e s o u r c e

c o n t r i b u t o r s . Even c r e d i t o r s r e g a r d h a r v e s t i n g s e a s o n a good

t ime i n b u s i n e s s . H a r v e s t i n g i s a l s o t h e t ime f o r s h a r i n g , a

~ e r i o d when t h e p roduc t owners a r e expec ted t o be generous

with t h e i r neighbors and f r i e n d s who had l e s s o r none of t h e

crop they have. Desp i te t h e joys t h a t h a r v e s t i n g b r i n g s t o

farmers and workers a l i k e , some problems a l s o a r i s e d u r i n g t h e

pe r iod . How the farmers and workers cope up under such

s i t u a t i o n s w i l l be covered i n t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n s .

Farmer Opera t o r s ' Problems

Excess workers. E igh ty- th ree p e r c e n t of t h e farmers i n

the i r r i g a t e d a r e a s r e p o r t e d hav ing problems wi th e x c e s s

workers whi le on ly a t h i r d of t h e r a i n f e d farmers r e p o r t e d

hav ing exper ienced the same (Table 24). An oversupp ly of

h a r v e s t e r s want ing work p l a c e s t h e farmers i n an awkward

p o s i t i o n of a c c e p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g a d d i t i o n a l workers . How

then d i d fa rmers r e a c t i n such s i t u a t i o n s ? I t was u s u a l l y t h e

f i r s t -come, f i r s t s e r v e p o l i c y t h a t some f a n n e r s observed when

a c c e p t i n g workers s o t h a t f a rmers p o l i t e l y r e f u s e d t h e l a t e

comers. Many farmers found i t d i f f i c u l t t o f l a t l y r e f u s e

a d d i t i o n a l l a b o r e r s . This was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s where t h i s problem was encountered by a

m a j o r i t y because of an over s u p p l y of l a b o r .

Table 24. Farmers ' method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of e x c e s s workers , 100 f rmers , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

ITEM I R R I G4TED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers 5 4 46 100

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g Farmers n o t r e p o r t i n g t h i s

problem 17 6 5 39

Farmers r e p o r t i n g t h i s problem

S o l u t i o n t o problem:

Refuse l a t e comers 38

Subdivide b i g g e r p l o t s 42

Accept everybody

L a t e workers a s k from e a r l y comers 1 3

Give p r i o r i t y t o r e g u l a r workers 5

a "Whisper" system

a Witholding i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g d a t e of h a r v e s t e x c e p t

t o a few workers .

When they accommodated a d d i t i o n a l h a r v e s t e r s they d i d

e i t h e r of two t h i n g s . One approach was f o r t h e fa rmers

themselves t o t e l l t h o s e h a r v e s t e r s who have come e a r l i e r and

occupied b i g p l o t s t o s h a r e a p o r t i o n t o t h o s e who had j u s t

a r r i v e d . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e l a t e comers dec ided f o r themselves

whether t h e a r e a g iven t o them was worth t h e t r o u b l e and t ime

t o h a r v e s t . I n t h e second method, f a rmers a c c e p t e d l a t e

comers on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t they would be t h e ones t o a s k

from t h o s e who had come e a r l i e r . This way, t h e fa rmers saved

themselves from o f f e n d i n g bo th t h e e a r l y workers and t h e l a t e

comers. Farmers a d m i t t e d t h a t they r e s o r t e d t o t h e f i r s t

approach when they r e a l l y wanted t o g i v e t h o s e l a t e comers a

p l o t t o h a r v e s t , o t h e r w i s e , t h e second method was a p p l i e d .

The l a t e comers themselves were r e l u c t a n t t o a s k from t h e i r

f e l l o w l a b o r e r s a p i e c e of work and would p e r s i s t o n l y i f t h e y

a r e i n d i r e need f o r r i c e s h a r e s .

Lack of workers . Although fa rmers could be faced wi th

a problem of e x c e s s workers , t h e same fa rmers might i n o t h e r

y e a r s o r seasons e x p e r i e n c e hav ing i n s u f f i c i e n t number of

workers. The problem, however, i s more common i n t h e r a i n f e d

v i l l a g e s where supp ly of l a b o r was s h o r t of t h e demands.

E igh ty - f ive p e r c e n t of f a rmers i n t h e r a i n f e d and 30% i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s had exper ienced t h i s problem (Tab le 2 5 ) .

Table 25. S o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of l a c k of a v a i l a b l e workers , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM I R R I GATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers 5 4

Fa rme r s

Not r e p o r t i n g problem

R e p o r t i n g t h i s problem

S o l u t i o n :

U t i l i z e f a m i l y l a b o r 19

Scout f o r more i n s i d e t h e v i 1 l a g e 3 1

Get workers o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e 31

O f f e r h i g h e r p a y / s h a r e / f o o d 19

Request r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s

When t h i s happened, farmers would look f o r more workers

e i t h e r i n s i d e o r o u t s i d e t h e i r v i l l a g e s . There were , however,

compara t ive ly l e s s f a rmers i n t h e r a i n f e d farms who would look

f o r workers beyond t h e boundar ies of t h e i r v i l l a g e s . Rainfed

farmers e x p l a i n e d t h a t i f they had t o look f o r more workers

from o u t s i d e v i l l a g e s , t h e y had t o spend cash f o r t h e i r own

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t h a t of t h e workers. S i n c e t h e amount of

cash t h a t most farmers have j u s t b e f o r e t h e r i c e c r o p i s

h a r v e s t e d o r s o l d is low, v e r y few went o u t of t h e v i l l a g e .

More of t h e s e r a i n f e d farmers on t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e s o r t e d t o

u s i n g f a m i l y l a b o r . I n c o n t r a s t , o n l y a few of t h e i r r i g a t e d

farmers would p r e f e r t o use fami ly l a b o r i n h a r v e s t i n g even

i f i t were s u f f i c i e n t because t h o s e fa rmers would not want

farm work f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . I n o r d e r t o g e t t h e number of

workers needed, more fa rmers o f f e r e d b e t t e r i n c e n t i v e s such a s

h i g h e r wages o r r a t e s and p r o v i s i o n of snacks a s 19% of t h e

i r r i g a t e d and 15% of t h e r a i n f e d fa rmers d i d .

Damaged c rops . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , 93% of t h e

farmers r e p o r t e d some e x p e r i e n c e of h a r v e s t i n g lodged c rops .

Another 52% h a r v e s t e d c rops which were e i t h e r h e a v i l y d i s e a s e d

or insect-damaged. (Tab le 2 6 ) . I n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , t h e

f i g u r e s were 43% f o r lodged c rops and 39% f o r damaged c rops .

Table 26. S o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of damaged c r o p s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

PROBLEM/SOLUTI ON I R R I GATED R A I NFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers

With problem of lodged c rops

S o l u t i o n :

I n c r e a s e s h a r i n g r a t e U t i l i z e f a m i l y l a b o r No change made Regular workers Double s h a r i n g r a t e s

With problem of damaged c r o p s

S o l u t i o n :

I n c r e a s e s h a r i n g r a t e U t i l i z e f a m i l y l a b o r Regular workers c a l l e d Double s h a r i n g r a t e

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

93 43

Since y i e l d would n a t u r a l l y be low, i n bo th c a s e s v e r y

few workers would be w i l l i n g t o h a r v e s t such k ind o f crop. I n

both i n s t a n c e s , t h e most common s o l u t i o n r e s o r t e d by i r r i g a t e d

farmers was t o o f f e r a much h i g h e r s h a r i n g r a t e . Some fa rmers

d i d not s t a t e beforehand t h e s h a r i n g r a t e s they would g ive

but i n some i n s t a n c e s , they s p e c i f i c a l l y double t h e s h a r i n g

r a t e s a t s h a r i n g t ime than l o s e t h e c r o p t o t a l l y . Rainfed

farmers would a l s o o f f e r h i g h e r r a t e s a l t h o u g h m a j o r i t y of

them would t u r n t o f ami ly l a b o r t o do t h e job. The advan tage

of m a i n t a i n i n g a number of r e g u l a r workers who could be r e l i e d

upon t o work f o r them d e s p i t e t h e expec ted low incomes become

e v i d e n t d u r i n g t h e s e t imes .

Close r e l a t i v e s a s k i n g f o r h a r v e s t i n g work. There had

been occas ions when some c l o s e r e l a t i v e s 4 6 would a r r i v e a t

the f a r m e r s ' farms a t t h e t ime of h a r v e s t when a l l t h e p l o t s

have already been occupied by workers. This was reported by

t h i r t y - n i n e p e r c e n t of t h e fa rmers i n t h e i r r i g a t e d and 43% i n

t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s . Two-thirds of a l l t h e fa rmers r e s e r v e d

4 6 ~ i m i t e d t o c h i l d r e n , g r a n d c h i l d r e n , s i b l i n g s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n and in-laws of t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

some p l o t s f o r t h e i r r e l a t i v e s t o work on i n c a s e t h e y had

been informed bu t d i d not come on t ime (Table 27) . I n t h e

i r r i g a t e d fa rms , o p e r a t o r s adopted a uniform f i r s t come- f i r s t

s e r v e p o l i c y which meant r e f u s i n g a l l t h o s e who a r r i v e d l a t e ,

whether they were r e l a t i v e s o r n o t . I n t h e c a s e of r e l a t i v e s ,

however, f a rmers d i d no t s imply r e f u s e t o l e t them h a r v e s t but

promised t o g ive t h e r e l a t i v e some amount of paddy f o r f r e e .

They had t o do t h i s s o a s not t o o f f e n d them nor t h o s e

h a r v e s t e r s who came e a r l i e r . This measure was not a n a c t u a l

cho ice but r a t h e r a s o c i a l n e c e s s i t y t o p r e s e r v e good s o c i a l

r e l a t i o n s .

Poor performance o f workers . Almost a l l f a r m e r s , 80%

i n t h e i r r i g a t e d and 96% i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , r e p o r t e d

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e performance of t h e i r workers (Tab le

28) . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d farms where h a r v e s t e r s a r e pa id a

p o r t i o n o f t h e h a r v e s t i n k i n d , poor performance c o n s i s t e d

mainly of c a r e l e s s c u t t i n g and h a n d l i n g of s t a l k s . H a r v e s t e r s

who h a s t e n e d work d i d s o i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y r e s u l t i n g t o some

s t a l k s l e f t uncut o r some p l a n t s t rampled r e s u l t i n g t o h i g h

f i e l d l o s s e s . I n t h e r a i n f e d farm where m a j o r i t y of t h e

h a r v e s t e r s were paid a d a i l y wage, poor performance of workers

inc luded s l o w i n g down work, t o o much r e s t p e r i o d s o r p l a y f u l

a c t i v i t i e s . Poor workers performance meant a l o s s t o f a rmers

Table 27. Method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of r e l a t i v e s a s k i n g f o r h a r v e s t i n g jobs f a r m s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

SOLUTT ON IRRIGATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers 54 46 100

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Farmers r e p o r t i n g t h i s problem 39 43 41

Farmers n o t r e p o r t i n g t h i s problem 6 1 5 7 59

S o l u t i o n :

P r i o r i t y g i v e d r e s e r v e p l o t s

Fi rs t -come, f i r s t - s e r v e on ly

Request from t h o s e w i t h b i g g e r p l o t s

Table 28. Method of s o l v i n g t h e problem of poor performance of workers , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a y 1982.

SOLUTI ON I R R I GATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of farmers 5 4 46 100

Farmers nor r e p o r t i n g t h i s problem 20

Farmers r e p o r t i n g t h i s problem 80

S o l u t i o n :

Admonish workers p e r s o n a l l y 84 Do n o t h i r e them next t ime 16

s o t h a t 83% of them admonished t h e workers t o improve t h e i r

work o r e v e n warned them o f p o s s i b l e work t e r m i n a t i o n i f t h e y

did no t improve. About 17%, however, d i d n o t s a y a n y t h i n g t o

workers who were no t pe r fo rming w e l l f o r f e a r of o f f e n d i n g

them. They s imply d i d no t h i r e them a g a i n i n t h e i r subsequent

h a r v e s t s .

Workers ' Problems

Problems i d e n t i f i e d . Table 29 i s a n enumerat ion of t h e

problems o r compla in t s of workers d u r i n g t h e h a r v e s t i n g -

t h r e s h i n g season . Unfavorable w e a t h e r , which i n c l u d e e i t h e r

r a i n o r h a r s h h e a t was mentioned a t h e number one problem by

two-thi rds of t h e workers . The i n s u f f i c i e n c y of f a m i l y l a b o r

d u r i n g peak p e r i o d s of h a r v e s t i n g was mentioned by 25% of t h e

workers and an equa l p r o p o r t i o n c i t e d t h e s e a s o n a l n a t u r e of

h a r v e s t i n g jobs . I t shou ld be noted t h a t t h e s e problems were

never complained by s m a l l farmer-hi red workers from t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , on ly some workers of t h e same type from t h e

r a i n f e d a r e a s c i t e d t h e s e problems. This o b s e r v a t i o n

r e f l e c t s t h e b e t t e r p o s i t i o n of i r r i g a t e d fa rmers i n t e r n s of

r i c e income because of b e t t e r paddy y i e l d i n s p i t e of t h e i r

s m a l l farm s i z e s .

Other minor problems r e p o r t e d i n c l u d e d v e r y s t r i c t o r

s e l e c t i v e f a r m e r s , poor c rop o r f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s and t h e l a c k

of a r e a s t o h a r v e s t . Farmers had become s e l e c t i v e i n t h e i r

cho ice of workers because t h e r e were more than enough people

who wanted h a r v e s t i n g jobs than t h e number of jobs a v a i l a b l e .

I n most i n s t a n c e s , farmers would g i v e p r e f e r e n c e t o r e l a t i v e s

b e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g o t h e r workers . The p r a c t i c e had been

Table 29. Problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , employment, 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

PROBLEM

IRRIGATED RAI NFED

Land less Small Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers 44 Problems r e p o r t e d :

Unfavorable wea the r 86 I n s u f f i c i e n t f ami ly labor

d u r i n g peak p e r i o d s 32 S e a s o n a l i t y of h a r v e s t i n g

jobs 18 S t r i c t o r s e l e c t i v e farmers 9 Poor c rop o r f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s 4 Inadequa te a r e a s t o h a r v e s t 4 A v a i l a b i l i t y of machines 23

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

20

disadvantageous t o workers who had none o r a few r e l a t i v e s i n

t h e v i l l a g e .

Poor c rop o r f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s e n t a i l e d more work and t ime

f o r about t h e same o r even l e s s s h a r e compared t o c rops of

good s t a n d and good f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s . Two farmers from

Cabanatuan complained t h a t t h e i n a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h r e s h i n g

machines r e s t r i c t e d t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n h a r v e s t i n g

a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e f i e l d s .

S o l u t i o n s o r workers ' a d a p t a t i o n s . Seven problems

connected wi th h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s had been

i d e n t i f i e d by workers . I n t h e o t h e r farm problems i d e n t i f i e d ,

t h e r e was no s o l u t i o n t h a t t h e workers cou ld f i n d o r t h a t o n l y

one r e c o u r s e was a v a i l a b l e f o r them. Out of t h o s e seven

problems i t was on ly i n t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s where workers had

more than one o p t i o n . There was n o t h i n g t h a t f a rmers cou ld do

regarding unfavorable weather. I f the problem was unexpected

r a i n s d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g , some workers could manage t o c o n t i n u e

working. However, i f r a i n came d u r i n g t h r e s h i n g , t h e r e was

n o t h i n g t h a t they could do but w a i t f o r t h e r a i n t o s t o p and

a l l o w some t ime f o r t h e s t a l k s t o d r y a l i t t l e . No farmer

employer would a l l o w t h r e s h i n g t o c o n t i n u e when r i c e s t a l k s

were v e r y wet even i f i t was a mechanical t h r e s h e r t h a t was t o

be used. I n c a s e of v e r y h a r s h s u n l i g h t , t h e r e was no o p t i o n

but t o h a r v e s t even under i n t e n s e h e a t . Workers could choose

t o s t a r t t h e t h r e s h i n g l a t e i n t h e a f t e r n o o n u n t i l e v e n i n g

when i t would be c o o l e r t h a n d u r i n g t h e day.

When most f i e l d s i n a n a r e a were damaged, t h e workers

e s p e c i a l l y t h e l a n d l e s s had no c h o i c e bu t t o a c c e p t h a r v e s t i n g

jobs f o r two reasons . F i r s t , f o r most of them, i t was b e t t e r

t o g e t low r i c e s h a r e s t h a n have no income a t a l l . Second,

they agreed t o work i n damaged f i e l d s s o t h a t when good

h a r v e s t s come, they would n o t be h e s i t a n t t o a s k f o r

h a r v e s t i n g jobs from t h e farmers whose poor c r o p s they have

h a r v e s t e d . I n some i n s t a n c e s , they g e t t h e p r i o r i t y from

t h o s e fa rmers .

I n i n s t a n c e s where t h e r e were no t h r e s h i n g machines

a v a i l a b l e , t h e workers cou ld on ly w a i t t i l l a u n i t a r r i v e d f o r

t h e i r use .

S ince h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g jobs a r e t h e main s o u r c e s

of income f o r a m a j o r i t y of t h e workers , t h e problem of

i n s u f f i c i e n t f a m i l y l a b o r was f e l t by more t h a n one- four th of

a l l t h e workers . I n o r d e r t o cope up , workers put i n e x t r a

t ime and e f f o r t t o h a r v e s t a s much a r e a a s t h e y cou ld (Tab le

30). This meant d o i n g t h e work a s f a s t a s t h e y could o r

s t a r t i n g work a s e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e and r e t i r i n g l a t e through

t h e n i g h t . E s p e c i a l l y i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s one measure was t o

h a r n e s s a l l f ami ly l a b o r i n o r d e r t o do a s much h a r v e s t i n g

work a s p o s s i b l e . This may mean p u l l i n g c h i l d r e n from schoo l

work t o h e l p i n

Table 30. S o l u t i o n s t o some problems c i t e d , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

I R R I CATED RAINFED

PROBLEMISOLUTI ON Landless Small Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers Problems and s o l u t i o n s :

I n s u f f i c i e n t f a m i l y l a b o r a t peak t ime

Ex t ra e f f o r t and t ime A l l a b l e members j o i n No c h o i c e

S e a s o n a l i t y of h a r v e s t i n g jobs

Do o t h e r farm and non- f a r m jobs

Seek work o u t s i d e v i l l a g e No c h o i c e

S t r i c t o r s e l e c t i v e fa rmers

Perform w e l l Avoid them next t ime No c h o i c e Seek work o u t s i d e v i l l a g e

number r e p o r t i n g

44 10 20 26 100

h a r v e s t i n g . Some farmers s a i d they cou ld n o t do a n y t h i n g

about i t .

The workers ' problem r e g a r d i n g t h e h i g h l y s e a s o n a l n a t u r e

of h a r v e s t i n g jobs was s o l v e d p a r t l y by d o i n g o t h e r farms and

non-farm jobs w i t h i n t h e v i l l a g e o r s e e k i n g h a r v e s t i n g o r

non-farm work o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e once t h e h a r v e s t i n g s e a s o n

was f i n i s h e d i n t h e i r a r e a s . However, workers complained t h a t

o t h e r farm o r non-farm jobs were a l s o d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d

anywhere both i n s i d e o r o u t s i d e t h e i r own v i l l a g e s .

S i x l a n d l e s s workers c i t e d t h e problem of s t r i c t o r

s e l e c t i v e farmer employees. The f a c t t h a t no s m a l l

farmer-hi red worker complained of s t r i c t f a rmers can be a

r e f l e c t i o n of t h e p r e f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t t h a t f a rmers g i v e t o

t h o s e who a r e of t h e same s t a t u s a s they a r e . This

o b s e r v a t i o n conf i rms t h e s t a t e m e n t of some farmers from t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s t h a t they had l e s s problems w i t h l a n d l e s s

workers than those who were farmers l i k e them. The l a n d l e s s

workers who were a f f e c t e d by t h i s problem r e p o r t e d d o i n g t h e i r

b e s t i n t h e i r work s o t h a t t h e farmer employers would h i r e

them a g a i n . Some workers avoided working f o r f a rmers who were

s t r i c t o r t h a t they sought h a r v e s t jobs o u t s i d e t h e v i l l a g e .

E f f e c t s of Techno log ica l , I n s t i t u t i o n a l and Demographic Changes on H a r v e s t i n g - ~ h r e s h i n g Arrangements

I n t h i s s e c t i o n , o b s e r v a t i o n s , p e r c e p t i o n s , e x p e c t a t i o n s

and d e s i r e s of both fa rmers and l a b o r e r s t h a t have r e l e v a n c e

wi th h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g a r rangements o v e r t h e y e a r s w i l l

be d i s c u s s e d . The f i r s t p a r t w i l l d e a l on t h e r e s p o n d e n t s '

a s sessment of t h e changes o r development i n h a r v e s t i n g

th ' r e sh ing arrangements t h a t they have obse rved w i t h i n t h e l a s t

f i v e t o t e n y e a r s . The second p o r t i o n w i l l d i s c u s s how

farmers and l a b o r e r s view s p e c i f i c t e c h n o l o g i c a l , demographic

and i n s t i t u t i o n a l developments a s they a f f e c t e d

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements . From a n assessment of p a s t

and p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n s , t h e next s e c t i o n w i l l move on t o

d i s c u s s what f a rmers and workers expec t and d e s i r e t o happen

t o h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements i n t h e nex t few y e a r s .

Observed Developments i n Harves t ing-Thresh ing Arrangements

S e v e r a l changes o r developments both i n t h e farm and

non-farm s e c t o r s have o c c u r r e d i n t h e l a s t f i v e t o t e n y e a r s .

P o p u l a t i o n h a s i n c r e a s e d r a p i d l y , i r r i g a t i o n s e r v i c e s have

been expanded, new farm machines have been d e v e l o p e d , and

s e v e r a l r u r a l development programs have been implemented

i n c l u d i n g a g r a r i a n r e fo rm. S i d e by s i d e w i t h t h e s e changes ,

some a s p e c t s of h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangement s may have

a l s o changed. Without r e f e r e n c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r s o u r c e of

change, t h e p e r c e p t i o n of f a r m e r s and worke r s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e

changes were e l i c i t e d . These p e r c e p t i o n s were d i v i d e d i n t o

f a v o r a b l e and u n f a v o r a b l e ones .

Fa rmers ' P e r c e p t i o n

F a v o r a b l e developments . The a d o p t i o n of s m a l l

mechan ica l t h r e s h e r s , r e p l a c i n g manual b e a t i n g h a s been t h e

most f a v o r a b l e development i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangement

a s f a r as two t h i r d s of t h e f a r m e r s i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s a r e

concerned. (Tab le 3 1 ) . Twenty p e r c e n t of t h e f a r m e r s ,

however, c o n s i d e r e d t h e "hampasan" o r hand b e a t i n g s y s t e m

which r e p l a c e d t h e u s e of McCormick t h r e s h e r s a b e t t e r change.

Table 31. Favorab le and u n f a v o r a b l e changes obse rved by 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

DEVELOPMENT IRRIGATED RAINFED ALL

Number of f a rmers 5 4 4 6 100

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Favorab le developments: ~ d o p t i o n of s m a l l

t h r e s h e r s Continued use of l a r g e

t h r e s h e r "Hunusan" system Decreas ing s h a r i n g r a t e s D e c l i n i n g exchange l a b o r None No comment

Unfavorable developments: Manual sys tem Ra tes and wages n o t

s t r i c t l y fo l lowed I n c r e a s i n g wages and

t h r e s h i n g f e e s Use of l a r g e t h r e s h e r s Decreas ing supp ly of

workers Use of s m a l l t h r e s h e r s None No comment

The g r a d u a l l y d e c r e a s i n g s h a r i n g r a t e s i n h a r v e s t i n g was a n

advantageous occurence f o r 13% of t h e fa rmers .

I n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , two t h i r d s of t h e fa rmers

mentioned t h a t t h e con t inued use of l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s

remained t o be advantageous t o them. Twenty p e r c e n t of t h e

f a r m e r s , however ,have s t a r t e d l i k i n g t h e s h i f t t o hand b e a t i n g

sys tem from t h e use of l a r g e t h r e s h e r s . This o b s e r v a t i o n i s

t r u e mos t ly f o r Bun01 farmers where pump- i r r iga t ion i s

a v a i l a b l e . Small t h r e s h e r s have s t a r t e d t o be f a v o r a b l e f o r

farmers who have s h i f t e d t o i t s use . Four p e r c e n t of t h e

farmers commented t h a t t h e d e c l i n i n g p r a c t i c e of exchange

l a b o r has been a good development f o r them.

Unfavorable developments. The s h i f t from l a r g e

t h r e s h e r s t o hand b e a t i n g was c o n s i d e r e d u n f a v o r a b l e by a

m a j o r i t y of t h e i r r i g a t e d fa rmers . This a t t i t u d e was

q u a l i f i e d by some of them when they remarked f u r t h e r t h a t t h e y

cons ide red hand b e a t i n g i n f e r i o r o r u n f a v o r a b l e on1 y when. t h e y

exper ienced u s i n g smal l t h r e s h e r s . There a r e , however some

farmers who cons ide red t h e manual sys tem more f a v o r a b l e . One

of t h e more n o t i c e a b l e developments r e p o r t e d by s i x p e r c e n t of

t h e i r r i g a t e d farmers i s t h e i n c r e a s i n g t h r e s h i n g f e e s . The

use of s m a l l t h r e s h e r s d i d n o t r e c e i v e a 100% a p p r o v a l even i f

a d o p t i o n i s 100% complete. For abou t a t h i r d of t h e f a r m e r s ,

no u n f a v o r a b l e development has happened i n t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s .

For t h e s e f a r m e r s , a l l t h e developments r e l a t e d t o

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements have a l l been f a v o r a b l e .

Workers ' P e r s p e c t i v e

Favorab le developments . From t h e p o i n t of view of

l a b o r e r s , manual t h r e s h i n g was f a v o r a b l e t o them because they

r e c e i v e d more s h a r e s under t h i s a r rangement . Th i s was

r e p o r t e d by a n a v e r a g e of 37% and 59% of t h e workers i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y (Tab le 3 2 ) . An

a lmos t e q u a l number of i r r i g a t e d w o r k e r s , however, c o n s i d e r e d

the a d o p t i o n of s m a l l t h r e s h e r s f a v o r a b l e ove r manual

t h r e s h i n g . One f i f t h of t h e l a n d l e s s workers i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s found t h a t t h e r e were more a r e a made a v a i l a b l e f o r

h a r v e s t i n g when i r r i g a t i o n was expanded w i t h i n t h e l a s t t e n

y e a r s . This f a v o r a b l e e f f e c t has been minimized because of

an e v e r i n c r e a s i n g farm p o p u l a t i o n .

I n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s , a lmos t h a l f of a l l workers

r ega rded t h e s h i f t t o manual t h r e s h i n g methods a f a v o r a b l e

development f o r t h e same r e a s o n t h a t t h i s sys tem gave more

Table 32. Favorable and unfavorable development observed by 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

CHANGES

IRRIGATED RAI NFED

Landless Sma 1 1 Landless Srna 1 1 A 1 1 Farmers Farmers

Number of workers 44 10 20

Favorable developments:

Manual t h r e s h i n g 65

Small t h r e s h e r use 5

More a r e a pe r worker

I n c r e a s i n g d a i l y wages

None

Table 32 ( con t i nued )

I R R I GATED RAINFED CHAN aS

Landless Sma 1 1 Landless Small A 1 1 Farmers Farmers

Unfavorable developments:

Manual t h r e s h i n g 5 2 30 3 5 19 38

Decreased s h a r i n g r a t e s 11 10 30 2 7 19

I n c r e a s e d compet i t ion jobs 7 30

Dai ly wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g 15 4 4

Exchange l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g

None 30 30 10 46 30

income t o them. S ince workers i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s a l s o went

out of t h e i r v i l l a g e s f o r h a r v e s t i n g j o b s , they d i d n o t f a i l

t o recognize t h a t when the i r r i g a t e d a r e a s i n t h e province

i n c r e a s e d , they had more a r e a t o h a r v e s t . I n c r e a s i n g d a i l y

wages f o r h a r v e s t i n g proved a f a v o r a b l e development f o r

workers .

Unfavorable developments. Manual t h r e s h i n g t h a t was

adopted a f t e r t h e pe r iod of l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s was a n

unfavorab le development i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s . This

o b s e r v a t i o n was advanced o n l y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t

s m a l l t h r e s h e r s came i n t o use t o t a l l y i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s . This means t o s a y t h a t workers wanted s m a l l

t h r e s h e r use over the hand b e a t i n g method of t h r e s h i n g .

Dec l in ing s h a r i n g r a t e s f o r h a r v e s t i n g was r e p o r t e d by about

11% of t h e i r r i g a t e d workers whi le t h e same percen tage

r e p o r t e d t h e e v e r i n c r e a s i n g compet i t ion f o r h a r v e s t i n g jobs

due t o i n c r e a s i n g farm popula t ion .

Decreased s h a r i n g r a t e s and manual t h r e s h i n g were t h e

more obvious changes o r developments not f a v o r a b l e f o r

workers. An a lmost equa l number of workers d i d no t l i k e t h e

p r a c t i c e of exchange l a b o r nor d id they want t o be paid a

d a i l y wage f o r h a r v e s t i n g . Exchange l a b o r excluded l a n d l e s s

workers from t h e o p e r a t i o n s because they had no farms t o work

on f o r exchange l a b o r . Only farm o p e r a t o r s cou ld p a r t i c i p a t e

i n t h i s p r a c t i c e .

Changes i n Income from H a r v e s t i n g and T h r e s h i n g

Decreased income. F i f t y - f o u r p e r c e n t of t h e i r r i g a t e d

l a n d l e s s workers and h a l f of t h e s m a l l f a rmer -h i r ed workers

r e p o r t e d d e c r e a s e d incomes from h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g j o b s

i n t h e l a s t f i v e y e a r s (Tab le 3 3 ) . There was u s u a l l y more

than one r e a s o n advanced from t h i s s a d p l i g h t . The two most

c i t e d r e a s o n s common t o bo th t h e l a n d l e s s workers and t h e

s m a l l f a rmers were d e c r e a s e d a r e a a v a i l a b l e p e r worke r and t h e

l a b o r d i s p l a c e m e n t caused by t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r s . These a r e

obvious e f f e c t s of demographic and t e c h n o l o g i c a l changes on

h a r v e s t i n g workers . The income of 50% of t h e i r r i g a t e d

l a n d l e s s d e c r e a s e d because t h e y have t a k e n o t h e r j o b s , e i t h e r

farm o r non-farm ones . E i g h t f a rmers remarked t h a t t h e y were

e a r n i n g l e s s from h a r v e s t i n g because t h e y were g e t t i n g o l d e r .

Table 3 3 . Changes i n income from h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g j o b s , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

REASON

IRRIGATED RAINFED

Land less Sma 1 1 Land1 e s s Sma 1 1 A 1 1 Farmer Farmer

Number of workers Workers r e p o r t i n g :

Decreased income I n c r e a s e d income No change

Reasons f o r d e c r e a s e d incomes: Less a r e a t o h a r v e s t 16 Other farm jobs t aken 14 Machines d i s p l a c e d them 15 Non-farm employment 8 Growing o l d 2 Acquired farm r i g h t s

number r e ~ o r t i n e

Table 33 ( c o n t i n u e d )

IRRIGATED RAI NFED REASONS

P - Landless Small Landless Small A 1 1

Farmer Farmer

Reasons f o r i n c r e a s e d incomes

I n c r e a s e d y i e l d s More farms t o work on A d d i t i o n a l f a m i l y l abor Loss of o t h e r jobs Machine u s e

The income from h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g jobs of two

respondents who used t o be l a n d l e s s workers decreased because

they were given s m a l l farms to t i l l . The i r incomes from

farming d e f i n i t e l y were more than t h o s e from d o i n g h a r v e s t i n g

jobs i n o t h e r farms.

There were two major reasons f o r lower incomes from

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g jobs i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s .

Workers complained of t h e decreased a r e a f o r h a r v e s t i n g

a v a i l a b l e pe r worker. I t was no t t h e a r e a i n s i d e t h e r a i n f e d

v i l l a g e s t h a t had decreased but those i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s

where they used t o go d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g seasons . Some of

t h e s e workers were a b l e t o t r a c e t h i s c o n d i t i o n t o e i t h e r

i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e farm o r t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r s t h a t

a r e b e i n g used i n t h e lowland farms. The second major r e a s o n

was t h a t t h e workers had t aken o t h e r farm jobs s o t h a t t h e

p r o p o r t i o n of income from h a r v e s t i n g t o t h e t o t a l dec reased .

I n e s s e n c e , t h i s r eason could be a n e f f e c t of t h e f i r s t r eason

mentioned, i . e . , t h e workers could have t a k e n more farm jobs

because t h e i r income from a major source has diminished.

Labor displacement caused by t h r e s h i n g machines was not a

major reason a s only two responden ts mentioned t h i s f a c t o r .

I n c r e a s e d incomes. D e s p i t e comments of decreased

income from h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , a s u b s t a n t i a l 30%

Table 3 4 . E f f e c t s of modern v a r i e t i e s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

EFFECT IRRIGATED RAI NFED BOTH

Number of farmers 5 4 46 100

E f f e c t s :

No comment 15 Higher c o s t s of o p e r a t i o n s 46 Less l a b o r r e q u i r e d 33 Workers rece ived incomes

sooner 6 Decreased s h a r i n g r a t e s 7 Need t o h a s t e n o p e r a t i o n s 2

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

p o s i t i v e e f f e c t f o r about f o u r - f i f t h s of a l l h a r v e r s t e r -

t h r e s h e r s who r e p o r t e d e a r n i n g b i g g e r s h a r e s o r more income i n

kind from t h e i r h a r v e s t jobs able 35). T h i s i s r e a l i s t i c i n

the s e n s e t h a t t h e new v a r i e t i e s gave g r e a t e r y i e l d s than t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l ones but t h a t t h e s h a r e s i n k ind remained f o r a

long t ime a t 116 up t o 117 of t h e g r o s s h a r v e s t . This meant

t h a t t h e i r s h a r e s went h i g h e r a s much a s t h e r e l a t i v e i n c r e a s e

i n y i e l d . The farmers could no t d e c r e a s e t h e s h a r i n g r a t e

a b r u p t l y because such move w i l l be met w i t h r e s i s t a n c e by

Table 3 5 . E f f e c t s of modern v a r i e t i e s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM

IRRIGATED RAINFED

Landless Sma 1 1 Landless Sma 1 1 A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers 44 10 20 2 6 100

E f f e c t s :

Bigger s h a r e s

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

75 70 9 5 8 1 80

E a r l i e r h a r v e s t 4 1 50 46 3 9

E a s i e r h a r v e s t 18 20 40 8 19

No comment 4 10 5 12 7

claimed t h a t such income i n c r e a s e d . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s , the count was on ly 7 o r 13 p e r c e n t of t h e workers.

The a d d i t i o n of grown-up f a m i l y members who can do h a r v e s t i n g

and t h r e s h i n g boosted workers ' income from t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s .

One farmer c r e d i t e d smal l t h r e s h e r u s e f o r i n c r e a s e d incomes.

I n c r e a s e d y i e l d s helped workers ' incomes from h a r v e s t i n g

to i n c r e a s e a l s o . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of more farms t o h a r v e s t

due t o expanded i r r i g a t e d a r e a s and l and reform e f f e c t e d a n

income i n c r e a s e and t h i s i s one reason why r a i n f e d fa rmers

cons ider t h e p r e s e n t b e t t e r than t h e p a s t . Some workers l o s t

t h e i r jobs s o t h a t they now spend more t ime d o i n g h a r v e s t i n g

work. Thus, a p r o p o r t i o n a l l y h i g h e r income from h a r v e s t i n g .

Technological

High y i e l d i n g r i c e . The use of modern v a r i e t i e s of

r i c e a f f e c t e d farmers and workers i n o p p o s i t e ways. Major i ty

of t h e farmers b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c o s t of h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g i n c r e a s e d wi th t h e new v a r i e t i e s (Table 34) . This

n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on the fa rmers ' s i d e i s , on t h e o t h e r hand, a

workers and c r e a t e f r i c t i o n i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of workers and

farmers w i t h i n t he v i l l a g e .

From the po in t of view of the workers , an a d d i t i o n a l

advantage brought about by the new r i c e v a r i e t i e s was i t s

e a r l y ma tu r i t y which gave them t h e chance t o e a r n t h e i r s h a r e s

e a r l i e r , too. This was r epo r t ed by 39% of t h e workers (Table

35) and about 6% of t h e farmers .

There were a s much farmers and workers (19%) who s t a t e d

t h a t the new v a r i e t i e s a r e e a s i e r t o handle o r r equ i r ed l e s s

l abo r t o h a r v e s t and t h r e s h than t h e t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t i e s .

Two farmers were a b l e t o expand t h a t wi th the new

v a r i e t i e s , t h e r e is a need t o ha s t en o p e r a t i o n s because they

s h a t t e r more e a s i l y and any de lay i n h a r v e s t i n g o r t h r e s h i n g

would mean l o s s f o r them. Five farmers commented t h a t t he use

of modern v a r i e t i e s t r i g g e r e d t he dec r ea se i n s h a r i n g r a t e s .

The new v a r i e t i e s were more expensive t o grow than t he o ld

r i c e v a r i e t i e s and they had no choice but t o g r adua l l y

dec r ea se the s h a r i n g r a t e s f o r manual h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e sh ing .

Small mechanical t h r e s h e r s . F a s t e r and more convenient

t h r e s h i n g a r e the most o f t e n c i t e d e f f e c t s of u s ing smal l

mechanical t h r e she r s . A s shown i n Table 36 more than 70% of

the f a r m e r s , whether u s e r s o r non-users of t h e s m a l l

t h r e s h e r s , mentioned t h a t s m a l l mechanical t h r e s h e r s e f f e c t e d

f a s t e r o p e r a t i o n s . The same was mentioned by 38% of t h e

workers a s shown i n Table 3 6 .

Table 3 6 . E f f e c t s of smal l t h r e s h e r use on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a y 1982.

EFFECT I R R I @TED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers 5 4 46 100

E f f e c t s : p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

No comment 7 No e f f e c t 18 F a s t e r o p e r a t i o n s 5 5 Less l a b o r r e q u i r e d 4 Less expens ive Less p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n 2 Less s u p e r v i s i o n r e q u i r e d 2 Others 5

Farmers i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s no ted t h a t u s i n g s m a l l

mechanical t h r e s h e r s was l e s s expens ive t h a n u s i n g t h e l a r g e

Mc~ormick t h r e s h e r s because wi th s m a l l t h r e s h e r s , expenses f o r

h a u l i n g and s t a c k i n g t h e s t a l k s i n one l o c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e

farm were e l i m i n a t e d . The d e c r e a s e i n l a b o r r equ i rement

caused by mechanical t h r e s h e r s was a l s o obvious t o t h e

fa rmers . A few farmers r e p o r t e d t h a t they s p e n t l e s s number

of hours i n s u p e r v i s i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n s of h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g t h a n when t h e y were employing manual methods.

One of t h e most v i s i b l e e f f e c t s of t h r e s h e r use on farm

workers was convenience a s mentioned by 51 workers (Tab le 3 7 ) .

I n t h i s c o n t e x t , convenience meant l e s s p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n ,

l e s s exposure t o t h e e lements and l e s s t ime s p e n t p e r farm.

I t a l s o meant t h a t they d i d n o t have t o worry abou t t h r e s h i n g

mats which they would o t h e r w i s e need t o p r e p a r e f o r t h r e s h i n g

had o t h e r methods been employed.

E igh teen p e r c e n t of t h e workers r e p o r t e d t h a t s h a r i n g

r a t e s f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g d e c l i n e d s h a r p l y r e s u l t i n g

from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e on ly t a s k s l e f t f o r t h e workers t o do

was t o cu t t h e r i c e s t a l k s and h a u l them t o t h e t h r e s h i n g

s i t e s . The h a u l i n g t a s k has been made much e a s i e r because t h e

t h r e s h i n g s i t e s a r e l o c a t e d i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s w i t h i n one farm.

Table 3 7 . E f f e c t s of small t h r e s h e r u s e on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s and a r rangement , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

I R R I WTED RAINFED

ITEM Landless Sma 1 1 Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers

E f f e c t s :

More conven ien t h a r v e s t i n g F a s t e r t h r e s h i n g o p e r t i o n Shares d e c l i n e d s h a r p l y Shares r e c e i v e d sooner Income i n c r e a s e d Income d e c r e a s e d No e f f e c t No comment

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

When t h e r a t e s of s h a r i n g d e c l i n e d , t h e workers ' income was

a f f e c t e d . One of t h e e f f e c t s of mechanical t h r e s h i n g which i s

ve ry impor tan t e s p e c i a l l y f o r l a n d l e s s l a b o r e r s was t h a t they

r e c e i v e d t h e i r s h a r e s sooner because o p e r a t i o n s were f a s t e r .

This means t h a t a d d i t i o n a l food can be a v a i l e d of by t h e

fami ly w i t h i n a s h o r t e r time. Some workers r e l a t e d t h a t t h e

paddy they were h a r v e s t i n g i n t h e morning could be t h e r i c e

they would be e a t i n g by . supper t ime.

Incomes of some workers were a l s o a f f e c t e d by mechanical

t h r e s h i n g . E igh t workers r e p o r t e d an i n c r e a s e i n income w h i l e

h a l f a s much complained of a dec reased income. I n t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s r e p o r t s of i n c r e a s e d income were mainly due t o

f a s t e r o p e r a t i o n s . Workers r e p o r t e d be ing a b l e t o h a r v e s t i n

o t h e r farms whi le w a i t i n g f o r t h r e s h i n g t o be done i n a f i e l d

they had h a r v e s t e d e a r l i e r .

Eleven workers from t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s s a i d t h a t t h e

e f f e c t s of u s i n g s m a l l t h r e s h e r s a r e not y e t v i s i b l e o r

t a n g i b l e a s t h e r e were y e t a few u n i t s i n o p e r a t i o n .

I r r i g a t i o n . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of more h a r v e s t i n g jobs

i n t h e v i l l a g e s of Cabanatuan was t h e most impor tan t

consequence of i r r i g a t i o n on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements

a s mentioned by 69% of t h e s e fa rmers on Table 38. Before

Table 38. E f f e c t s of i r r i g a t i o n on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 54 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

EFFECT NUMBER PERCENT

More h a r v e s t i n g jobs a v a i l a b l e 37 69 Need t o r u s h o p e r a t i o n s 10 18 Farmers became more generous 2 4 B e t t e r l i v i n g f o r l a n d l e s s workers 1 2 None 5 9 Do n o t know 5 9

i r r i g a t i o n came i n 1967, they were a b l e t o grow on ly one c r o p

of r i c e fo l lowed by some v e g e t a b l e s . There were t e n fa rmers

who remarked t h a t because of i r r i g a t i o n t h e y had t o f i n i s h t h e

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s much f a s t e r t h a n when t h e y

j u s t wa i t ed f o r r a i n wa te r . This meant t h a t s t a c k i n g can n o t

be prolonged a s t h e f i e l d had t o be c l e a r e d i n t ime f o r t h e

i r r i g a t i o n schedu led f o r t h e next c rop . A s Kikuchi and

a s s o c i a t e s ment ioned, i r r i g a t i o n was one of t h e reasons why

the use of t h e l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s was abandoned.

Two crops a y e a r gave t h e farmers a s e n s e of a s s u r a n c e

t h a t they could have enough paddy f o r home consumption f o r a

yea r . For t h i s r e a s o n , two farmers f e l t t h e y became more

generous wi th h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s . One farmer commented t h a t

t h e two seasons of d o i n g h a r v e s t i n g jobs provided b e t t e r

l i v i n g f o r workers , e s p e c i a l l y t h e l a n d l e s s ones .

Farmers i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s gave no remarks about

i r r i g a t i o n . Even t h e farmers from Bunol where some farms were

pump-i r r igated s t a t e d t h a t t h e pump-i r r igated a r e a was s o

smal l so a s t o c r e a t e any e f f e c t i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

arrangements d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e i n t h e o t h e r r a i n fed

v i 1 l a g e s of Guimba. The pump-i r r iga t e d a r e a con t inued t o

d e c l i n e because of t h e h igh c o s t of f u e l .

Workers, on t h e o t h e r hand, could o n l y ment ion t h a t w i t h

a v a i l a b l e i r r i g a t i o n , they could h a r v e s t twice a y e a r which

meant a d d i t i o n a l food f o r them. Before 1979, abou t 130

h e c t a r e s were pump-i r r igated f o r a second r i c e crop. During

t h e s u r v e y p e r i o d , Bunol farmers e s t i m a t e d t h a t l e s s t h a n 30

h e c t a r e s would use pumps.

Demographic

I n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d l e s s n e s s . Tables 39, 40

and 41 show how farmers and workers p e r c e i v e d t h e e f f e c t s of a

r a p i d l y growing farm p o p u l a t i o n and i n c r e a s i n g l a n d l e s s n e s s on

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements . There were about one-f i f t h

of a l l farmer responden t s and two p e r c e n t of t h e workers who

d i d not know how i n c r e a s e d p o p u l a t i o n had a f f e c t e d them.

Eight p e r c e n t of t h e workers suppor ted t h e c l a i m of 17% of t h e

farmers t h a t i n c r e a s e d p o p u l a t i o n has had no e f f e c t s on them

o r t h a t i t was no t a problem i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a r e a s d u r i n g

the su rvey p e r i o d . Such s i t u a t i o n was more v i s i b l e i n t h e

r a i n f e d than i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s bo th from t h e f a r m e r s ' and

workers ' p e r s p e c t i v e s . The i n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r

h a r v e s t i n g jobs and t h e a t t e n d a n t r e s u l t of d e c r e a s e d e a r n i n g s

were t h e e f f e c t s c i t e d by most farmers and t h e o n l y ones

mentioned by workers (96%).

There were two p o s i t i v e consequences t h a t i n c r e a s i n g

p o p u l a t i o n brought t o farmer o p e r a t o r s . H a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s were done more r a p i d l y a s no ted by 154,

whi le t h r e e p e r c e n t mentioned t h a t l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g became

Table 39. E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d l e s s n e s s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s and a r rangements 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM

IRRIGATED RAINFED

Landless Small Land less Small A 1 1 Farmer Farmer

Number of workers 44 10 20 2 6 100

E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g popula t ion : I n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r

jobs 25 Decreased e a r n i n g s 45 No e f f e c t 2 No comment

E f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g l a n d l e s s n e s s : I n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r

jobs 5 2 Decreased e a r n i n g s 61 No e f f e c t 2 No comment 4

cheaper (Table 40) . One farmer observed t h a t w i t h an

i n c r e a s e d number of workers competing f o r h a r v e s t i n g j o b s , t h e

problem of c o n t r o l l i n g t h e number of workers became d i f f i c u l t

because t h e r e were many workers wan t ing t o t a k e p a r t i n t h e

o p e r a t i o n s . O f t e n , farmers f i n d themselves i n such awkward

s i t u a t i o n s whether they would admit some workers o r n o t .

I n c r e a s i n g l a n d l e s s n e s s a f f e c t e d t h e workers i n j u s t t h e

same ways t h a t a r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g farm p o p u l a t i o n d i d .

I n c r e a s e d compet i t ion f o r jobs and d e c r e a s e d e a r n i n g s from

h a r v e s t i n g were 97% of t h e e f f e c t s mentioned by workers (Table

39) a l t h o u g h about 20% e i t h e r b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r e had been no

e f f e c t s o r could no t comment on t h e i s s u e .

The e f f e c t of dec reased income f o r workers was recogn ized

by farmers a s one e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g l a n d l e s s n e s s (Tab le

41) . Some fa rmers were a l s o of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t o p e r a t i o n s

had been done much f a s t e r because of t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of

l a n d l e s s workers whose main a c t i v i t y and s o u r c e of income was

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g . Four p e r c e n t of t h e farmers

remarked t h a t t h e l a n d l e s s workers had d i s p l a c e d s m a l l f a rmers

who used t o do h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g . They e x p l a i n e d t h a t i n

rnany i n s t a n c e s where they wanted t o h a r v e s t i n a f i e l d where

t h e r e were p l e n t y of l a n d l e s s workers , they j u s t had t o g i v e

up t h e o p p o r t u n i t y i n f avor of t h e l a n d l e s s h a r v e s t e r s . On

t h e o t h e r hand, t h r e e fa rmers s t a t e d t h a t t h e y had l e s s

Table 40. E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

EFFECTS I R R I @TED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a r m e r s

E f f e c t s :

~ o n e / n o problem 11 I n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n

f o r work 13 Decreased income f o r

workers 44 F a s t e r o p e r a t i o n s 2 0 Cheaper h a r v e s t l a b o r 6 D i f f i c u l t c o n t r o l

of workers 2 No comment/ do n o t know 11

5 4 46 100

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Table 41. E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g l a n d l e s s n e s s on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e sh ing a r rangements , 100 f a rmer s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

EFFECTS IRRI GATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of farmers 54 4 6 100

E f f e c t s :

Decreased income f o r workers

F a s t e r ope ra t i ons Landless workers

d i s p l a c e d sma 11 farmers

Less problems with workers

No comment No problem f e l t No e f f e c t

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

problems wi th workers when they were of t h e l a n d l e s s c l a s s

than when the workers were farmers l i k e themselves. They

exp la ined t h a t wi th f a n e r s who were of t h e same s t a t u s a s

themselves , they were compelled t o be more l i b e r a l i n terms of

t h e i r work performance o r be more generous when i t comes t o

g i v i n g t h e ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g s h a r e s .

I n s t i t u t i o n a l

Land reform. Table 42 shows t h a t one of t h e most

v i s i b l e e f f e c t s of land reform on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

arrangements was t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of o v e r s e e r s d u r i n g

o p e r a t i o n .

Land r e f o n a l s o enab led farmers more independence i n

decision-making on such i s s u e s a s when t o h a r v e s t , whom t o

h i r e a s workers , whose machine t o h i r e o r how much t o pay

workers These freedom were n o t a t a l l enjoyed under t h e

s h a r i n g system of l and tenancy d u r i n g t h e pe r iod b e f o r e l and

r e f o m . Most farmers i n Nueva E c i j a were under s h a r e tenancy.

Under t h i s sys tem, no farmer could proceed wi th h a r v e s t i n g

Table 42. E f f e c t s of l and reform on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

EFFECTS IRRIGATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of farmers

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

E f f e c t s :

Overseer e l i m i n a t e d I n c r e a s e d d e c i s i o n S h a r i n g l e s s s t r i c t McCormick t h r e s h e r

out f a sh ioned No e f f e c t No comment/do no t know

wi thou t in fo rming t h e landowners o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . An

o v e r s e e r a s s i g n e d by t h e landowners s u p e r v i s e d t h e t h r e s h i n g

o p e r a t i o n s e s p e c i a l l y t h e s h a r i n g p o r t i o n . I n such c a s e s

where t h e landowners owned a t h r e s h i n g machine , i t was

compulsory f o r t h e t e n a n t farmers t o u s e o n l y t h e i r l a n d l o r d ' s

machines even i f i t meant w a i t i n g f o r v e r y l o n g p e r i o d s . Th i s

must be t h e r e a s o n why a farmer s a i d t h a t w i t h l and re fo rm,

McCormick t h r e s h e r s went o u t of use .

With a change i n t e n u r e s t a t u s ' e i t h e r a s a s h a r e t e n a n t

t o e i t h e r a l e a s e h o l d e r o r a n a m o r t i z i n g owner, some fa rmers

f e l t t h a t they have somehow been l e s s s t r i c t w i t h workers i n

terms of g i v i n g t h e i r h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s h a r e s .

Workers were l e s s keen i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e e f f e c t s of l a n d

reform on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements . No worker e v e r

mentioned any e f f e c t of l a n d reform on t h e i r h a r v e s t i n g -

t h r e s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s .

Harves t ing-Thresh ing Arrangements i n t h e F u t u r e

Changes Expected i n t h e F u t u r e

Changes workers e x p e c t . The most p r o b a b l e a s p e c t of

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e

workers were apprehens ive about i s t h a t s h a r i n g r a t e s w i l l

d e c l i n e a s p r i c e s of o t h e r i n p u t s f o r r i c e p r o d u c t i o n

i n c r e a s e s (Tab le 4 3 ) . Three fa rmers b e l i e v e d t h a t d a i l y wages

pa id i n k ind would i n c r e a s e . Workers a l s o e x p e c t t h a t more

machines w i l l be used. I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s which i s

s a t u r a t e d w i t h s m a l l mechanica l t h r e s h e r s , workers expec ted

t h a t o t h e r types of machines l i k e r e a p e r s and s m a l l combines

Table 4 3 . Changes i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements t h a t 100 workers expec t i n t h e f u t u r e , Nueva E c i j a , 1982 .

ITEM IRRIGATED RAINFED

Land less Sma 11 Land less Sma 1 1 A 1 1 Farmer Farmer

Number of workers 4 4 10 2 0 2 6 100 Expected changes: p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

Decrease i n s h a r i n g r a t e s 61 6 0 6 0 35 5 4 Use of more machines 5 10 1 0 19 1 0 I n c r e a s e i n d a i l y wages 5 8 3 Decrease i n h a r v e s t a r e a 2 1 No change 2 1 No comment 3 0 2 5 38 3 1

Changes w i 11 f a v o r : Farmer 45 Both farmer and machine owner 7 Machine owner 1 6 Workers F a i r t o both farmer and worker 12

Do n o t know 30

would soon be i n t r o d u c e d and adopted i n t h e i r v i l l a g e s . On

t h e o t h e r hand, r a i n f e d workers expec ted t h a t more u n i t s of

t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r s would be used. Some of them even

mentioned t h a t s m a l l t h r e s h e r s might comple te ly r e p l a c e t h e

l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s . There was one farmer who advanced

t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e a r e a a v a i l a b l e f o r h a r v e s t i n g would

soon d e c r e a s e a t a f a s t r a t e c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t r i c e l a n d s a r e

c o n t i n u a l l y b e i n g conver ted i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l

s i t e s . Almost one t h i r d of t h e responden t s d i d n o t g i v e any

comment on t h i s i s s u e .

B e n e f i c i a r i e s of expec ted changes. From t h e p o i n t of

view of a r i j o r i t y of t h e workers , f u t u r e changes i n

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements would b e n e f i t on ly t h e

farmers o r machine owners. The d e c r e a s e i n s h a r i n g r a t e s and

t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of more machines would favor t h e fa rmers .

Three workers , however, b e l i e v e d t h a t they would be favored

e s p e c i a l l y i f d a i l y wages f o r h a r v e s t i n g would i n c r e a s e w h i l e

a n o t h e r two cons ide red t h e coming changes t o be f a i r t o bo th

workers and f a r m e r s .

Changes fa rmers e x p e c t . Farmers ' e x p e c t a t i o n s

r e g a r d i n g changes i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements were

no t d i f f e r e n t from what workers expec ted . They expec ted t h a t

a d e c r e a s e i n s h a r i n g r a t e s w i l l be accompanied by a n i n c r e a s e

i n t h r e s h i n g f e e s and d a i l y wages f o r h a r v e s t i n g (Tab le 44).

Unl ike t h e workers , however, t h e r e were fa rmers from t h e

r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s who expec ted t h a t a s i d e from a d d i t i o n a l s m a l l

t h r e s h e r s , o t h e r forms of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g machines

would be used i n t h e a r e a . Some fa rmers i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

a r e a s expected two major changes t h a t can a l t e r t h e p r e s e n t

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangement p r a c t i c e d i n t h e t h r e e

v i l l a g e s . Cash payment f o r bo th h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g was

expected t o r e p l a c e t h e c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e of p a y i n g h a r v e s t e r s

and t h r e s h i n g machines and o p e r a t o r s a p e r c e n t a g e of t h e

h a r v e s t . Some r a i n f e d farmers a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e complete

demise of exchange l a b o r i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g t a s k s and

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of g r a v i t y i r r i g a t i o n would c r e a t e major

changes.

B e n e f i c i a r i e s of expec ted changes. Farmers a d m i t t e d

t h a t the changes t h a t they expected t o occur i n t h e f u t u r e

were l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t themselves and machine owners more than

t h e h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s . This is t r u e on ly f o r t h e i r r i g a t e d

farmers because a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r a i n f e d f a r m e r s , t h e b e n e f i t s

of t h e expec ted changes would a c c r u e more t o t h e workers t h a n

themselves . I t is a r e a l i s t i c a s sessment s i n c e t h e most c i t e d

expected change i n t h e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s i s t h e i n c r e a s e i n

cash wages fo l lowed by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of new machines.

Table 44. Changes i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangement t h a t 100 f a r m e r s e x p e c t i n the f u t u r e , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM I K R I GATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a rmers

Expected changes :

Decrease i n s h a r i n g r a t e s and / o r i n c r e a s e i n t h r e s h i n g f e e s

I n c r e a s e i n cash wages I n t r o d u c t i o n of new machines A d d i t i o n a l sma l l t h r e s h e r s End of exchange l a b o r Cash payment f o r b o t h o p e r a t i o n s Adopt ion of "gama" I r r i g a t i o n No change Do n o t know

54 46 100

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

T a b l e 44 ( c o n t i n u e d )

ITEM IRRIGATED RAI NEED BOTH

Changes w i l l f a v o r :

Fa rmer s 4 7 Harves t e r - t h r e s h e r 8 Fa rmer s a n d machine owners 2 1 Machine owners 13 Fa rmer s a n d worke r s 8 Workes a n d machine owne r s 3

Changes Desired i n t h e F u t u r e

Changes d e s i r e d by workers. Table 45 shows t h a t

two-thi rds of t h e workers d e s i r e d t h a t s h a r i n g r a t e s on d a i l y

wages i n h a r v e s t i n g be i n c r e a s e d . This d e s i r e may be c o n t r a r y

t o what t h e m a j o r i t y of them expec ted t o happen, which i s t h a t

such r a t e s o r wages would d e f i n i t e l y d e c r e a s e . About one

f o u r t h b e l i e v e d i t would be a more r e a l i s t i c d e s i r e t h a t t h e

r a t e s o r wages be main ta ined a t t h e i r p r e s e n t l e v e l s . The

d e s i r e f o r more u n i t s of smal l t h r e s h e r s i n t h e r a i n f e d

v i l l a g e s i s no t on ly c o n s i s t e n t wi th workers ' e x p e c t a t i o n s but

i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e advan tages they perce ived i n u s i n g t h e

machine. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e d e s i r e of a l a n d l e s s worker

from an i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e t h a t no a d d i t i o n a l machine f o r

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g be adopted i n t h e f u t u r e conveys h i s

f e a r of b e i n g d i s p l a c e d by such machine.

Changes d e s i r e d by fa rmers . More than any o t h e r a s p e c t

of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , t h e farmers from t h e r a i n f e d

a r e a s d e s i r e d t h a t t h e r a t e s o r wages agreed upon by farmers

themselves be s t r i c t l y fol lowed (Table 4 6 ) . The d e s i r e i s

c o n s i s t e n t wi th t h e problems r e p o r t e d by fa rmers r e g a r d i n g

Table 45. Changes d e s i r e d i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

I R R I CATED RAINFED

Landless Smal l Land less Small A l l Fa m e r Farmer

Number of wokers 44 10 20 26 100

Des i red changes : p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

I n c r e a s e s h a r i n g r a t e s 66 70 90 54 o r wages

Main ta in e x i s t i n g r a t e s 2 5 30 5 34 More s m a l l t h r e s h e r s be used 8 No a d d i t i o n a l machines 2 No comment 7 4

Tab le 46. Changes d e s i r e d i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

CHANGE IRRIGATED RAINFED BOTH

Number of f a r m e r s D e s i r e changes D e s i r e no change

Changes d e s i r e d : S t r i c t compliance w i t h

a g r e e d r a t e s Decrease s h a r i n g r a t e a n d / o r

t h r e s h i n g gee "Gama" sys t em be a d a p t e d Cash payment f o r b o t h

o p e r a t i o n s S h a r i n g r a t r e i n c r e a s e s be

modera te Cash payment f o r h a r v e s t i n g

a Labor ar rangement where worke r s e a r n t h e r i g h t t o h a r v e s t a

p l o t which t h e y weeded f o r f r e e .

high c o m p e t i t i o n f o r workers s o t h a t many do n o t f o l l o w t h e

s e t r a t e s o r wages but o f f e r h i g h e r ones j u s t t o a t t r a c t

workers. Con t ra ry t o most of t h e workers ' d e s i r e f o r

i n c r e a s e d s h a r i n g r a t e s o r wages, a t h i r d of t h e farmers

wanted t h a t t r e n d s be towards lower r a t e s and wages. Two

i r r i g a t e d farmers were r e a l i s t i c and k i n d enough t o d e s i r e

t h a t even i f r a t e s o r wages were t o be i n c r e a s e d , such

i n c r e a s e s should only be moderate. S i x i r r i g a t e d farmers

wished t h a t t h e "gama" system p r a c t i c e d i n Bulacan and o t h e r

p rov inces be adop ted soon i n t h e i r v i l l a g e s . No r a i n f e d

farmer advanced t h i s d e s i r e s i n c e h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r i n t h e

sample r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s was not a s abundant a s i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s . Three farmers wanted t h a t payment f o r

both h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g be paid i n cash. The p r e s e n t

m a j o r i t y paid d a i l y wages f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h e mechanical

t h r e s h e r s a p e r c e n t a g e of t h e g r o s s paddy t h r e s h e d . An

i r r i g a t e d fa rmer , on one hand, d e s i r e d cash payment f o r

h a r v e s t i n g i n s t e a d of t h e s h a r e i n k i n d payment a t p r e s e n t .

P o s s i b l e E f f e c t s of Reaper Use

The r e a p e r i s a machine t h a t c u t s t h e r i c e s t a l k s s e v e r a l

rows a t a t i m e , l a y i n g them i n n e a t rows on t h e r i g h t s i d e of

the machine. I t i s a t t a c h e d t o a 3-horsepower g a s o l i n e hand

t r a c t o r . The machine h a s a c u t t i n g c a p a c i t y of 0.25 h e c t a r e s

i n one hour wi th o n l y t h r e e men needed t o o p e r a t e , p r e p a r e t h e

p l o t s and g a t h e r t h e s t a l k s t o t h e t h r e s h i n g s i t e s . Some

u n i t s of t h e I R R I and non-IRRI models a r e now i n use i n some

p a r t s of Bataan p rov ince and t h e Cagayan Va l ley Region i n

Luzon and o t h e r p a r t s of Panay I s l a n d and Mindanao.

Some fa rmers have s e e n u n i t s on d i s p l a y i n farm machinery

shops . While o t h e r s have n o t y e t s e e n a sample of t h e machine

o t h e r s have s e e n them i n o p e r a t i o n . The responden t s were

b r i e f e d on t h e f e a t u r e s of t h e machine and t h e i r o p i n i o n s were

e l i c i t e d .

Fa rmer ' s op in ion . The a d v e r s e e f f e c t s of r e a p e r u s e on

w o r k e r ' s income and jobs were recogn ized by a m a j o r i t y of

t h e fa rmers (Table 47). Sixty-two p e r c e n t of t h e fa rmers were

q u i c k t o remark t h a t a r e a p e r would d e c r e a s e t h e s h a r e s and

incomes of workers. Eleven p e r c e n t r e a l i z e d t h a t i f r e a p e r s

would be used , t h e workers , e s p e c i a l l y t h e l a n d l e s s would

l e a v e t h e farm. More fa rmers i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s r e a l i z e d

t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y because t h e r e had a l r e a d y been con t inuous

Table 47. Fanners ' opinion on t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of r e a p e r u s e , 100 f a r m e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

EFFECT

-- - -

I R R I GATED RAINFED

Number of f a rmers

E f f e c t s

Decreased s h a r e s and income

Loss of h a r v e s t i n g jobs Workers w i l l l e a v e farm Discon ten t and d i s o r d e r Hunger and p o v e r t y C a p i t a l i s t s w i l l e a r n more Convenience f o r farmers

on1 y Exchange l a b o r w i l l r e t u r n No comment

p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g

o u t m i g r a t i o n from t h e s e a r e a s due t o l a c k of jobs . Farmers

exp la ined f u r t h e r t h a t when h a r v e s t e r s and t h r e s h e r s would

l e a v e t h e farm, t h e r e would be no workers who can be h i r e d f o r

o t h e r farm work s o t h a t o t h e r machines f o r o t h e r farm

o p e r a t i o n s might be needed. I n c r e a s e d hunger and pover ty

might r e s u l t from r e a p e r use a s e i g h t p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d . These

farmers f o r e s e e t h a t t h e r e would be rampant s t e a l i n g of uncut

paddy i n t h e f i e l d s . Some fa rmers o r 10% of them f e a r e d t h a t

i t could go beyond hunger t o d i s c o n t e n t and d i s o r d e r . A

number of farmers a d m i t t e d t h a t r e a p e r use would be conven ien t

f o r them o r t h a t c a p i t a l i s t s o r machine owners were l i k e l y t o

g e t more b e n e f i t s . One farmer from t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s

s p e c u l a t e d t h a t exchange l a b o r might r e t u r n when r e a p e r s a r e

t o be used. Haul ing c u t s t a l k s t o t h e t h r e s h i n g s i t e s would

be t h e on ly t a s k l e f t and exchange l a b o r among farm o p e r a t o r s

could be r e s o r t e d t o i n t h i s c a s e .

Workers' op in ion . Workers were p e s s i m i s t i c about t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e a p e r s would be used i n t h e v i l l a g e s . The

l o s s of h a r v e s t i n g jobs and t h e r e s u l t i n g decreased incomes

were t h e most c i t e d p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s (Table 4 8 ) . Decreased

incomes f o r workers would mean i n c r e a s e d pover ty and hunger

f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Workers s p e c u l a t e d t h a t due t o t h e f i r s t

t h r e e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of l o s s of j o b s , dec reased income

Table 48. Workers ' op in ion on t h e p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of r e a p e r u s e , 100 workers , Nueva Eci j a , 1982.

EFFECTS

IRRIGATED RAI NFED

Landless Smal l Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers 44 10 20 26 100

E f f e c t s :

Loss of h a r v e s t i n g 89 0 90 50 7 8 Decreased r a t e s and income 20 20 2 5 50 2 9 Hunger and p o v e r t y 3 4 40 40 27 35 Workers w i l l l e a v e farm 11 3 0 10 4 11 Discon ten t and d i s o r d e r 4 10 5 8 6 ~ a z i n e s s 5 8 3 No change 2 1

and i n c r e a s e d p o v e r t y , two t h i n g s might happen. Those who

have t h e means might l e a v e t h e farm t o t a k e up work i n t h e

non-farm s e c t o r s . I n t h e l o n g r u n , t h o s e who by r e a s o n of

l a c k of s k i l l r a t h e r than a c t u a l c h o i c e , would be l e f t behind

would soon be d i s c o n t e n t e d and d i s o r d e r may fo l low. Rampant

s t e a l i n g of paddy r i g h t on t h e farms would mark t h e beg inn ings

of d i s o r d e r .

Socio-Psychological Aspec t s of t h e Workers' E x i s t e n c e

Jobs P r e f e r r e d by Workers.

Harves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g and o t h e r farm jobs . Table 49

shows t h a t 91% of t h e workers would choose t o do h a r v e s t i n g

a n d / o r t h r e s h i n g jobs than o t h e r farm jobs such a s p lowing,

weeding, b u i l d i n g d i k e s , h a u l i n g , e t c . Compared t o o t h e r farm

j o b s , t h e most c i t e d reason why h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g j o b s were

p r e f e r r e d i s t h e h i g h e r o r b e t e r income r e c e i v e d e s p e c i a l l y

where s h a r e s were pa id i n k ind. Workers c la imed t h a t a d a y ' s

income from h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g was worth t h e income f o r

two days i n o t h e r farm jobs pa id i n cash. A d i s t i n c t

advan tage of most h a r v e s t i n g jobs e s p e c i a l l y f o r l a n d l e s s

workers is t h a t payment was u s u a l l y paid i n k ind. I t i s a

p s y c h o l o g i c a l income i n t h e s e n s e t h a t what they r e c e i v e d i s

Table 49. P r e f e r e n c e f o r h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g o r o t h e r farm j o b s , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

ITEM

I R R I CATED RAI NEED

L a n d l e s s Small Land1 e s s Small A 1 1 Farmer Farmer

Number of workers Workers who p r e f e r :

H a r v e s t i n g jobs Other farm jobs

Reason f o r p r e f e r r i n g HIT job :

H i g h e r l b e t t e r income 23 Payment i n k i n d 5 E a s i e r job 5 Worker can r e s t 1 Longer d u r a t i o n l f e w

o t h e r farm jobs No r e a s o n g iven 6

number r e p o r t i n g

Table 49 ( c o n t i n u e d )

IRRIGATED RAINFED ITEM

Land less Sma 11 L a n d l e s s Smal l A 1 1 Fa rme r Fanner

Reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g o t h e r farm j o b s : :

Higher wage Cash payment Simpler and l e s s b o r i n g

i n t h e form of a food i tem. H a r v e s t i n g , a s 12% o f t h e workers

c l a imed , was a n e a s i e r job compared f o r example, t o plowing

where one had t o be i n t h e muddy f i e l d f o r hours . A t

h a r v e s t i n g t ime , t h e f i e l d s have u s u a l l y been d r a i n e d f o r a

number of days b e f o r e . Also , workers c o n s i d e r e d t h e advan tage

i n h a r v e s t i n g which a l l o w them t o r e s t and work a t t h e i r own

pace because t h e s h a r e s they g e t i s based on t h e i r work

o u t p u t . I n c o n t r a s t , a worker had t o put i n a lmost e i g h t

hours of work under s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e farmer employer f o r t h e

d a i l y wages he r e c e i v e s i n o t h e r farm jobs . These workers

a l s o mentioned t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p e r i o d f o r h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g had a longer d u r a t i o n than o t h e r farm a c t i v i t i e s and

t h a t t h e r e a r e v e r y few o t h e r farm jobs where h i r e d l a b o r i s

u t i l i z e d . The m a j o r i t y of t h e workers who p r e f e r o t h e r farm

jobs t o h a r v e s t i n g wanted t h e h i g h e r wages o r cash payment

r e c e i v e d f o r t h o s e k i n d s of jobs . I n a d d i t i o n t o h i g h e r

wages, workers mentioned t h a t wi th non-harves t i n g j o b s , wages

were no t o n l y h i g h e r bu t t h a t t h e y got t h e i r pay a s soon a s

they f i n i s h e d t h e i r work whereas i n h a r v e s t i n g , d e l a y s i n

r e c e i v i n g s h a r e s a s a r e s u l t of de layed t h r e s h i n g happened

v e r y o f t e n . I n most o t h e r farm j o b s , f r e e meals were provided

t o t h e workers . The o t h e r s c o n s i d e r e d non-harves t ing jobs

s i m p l e r and l e s s b o r i n g than h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g work.

H a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g and non-farm jobs . While 91% of

t h e workers p r e f e r r e d h a r v e s t i n g t o o t h e r farm j o b s , t h e

p r o p o r t i o n of t h o s e who p r e f e r r e d h a r v e s t i n g t o non-farm work

was lower a t 79% (Table 5 0 ) . Higher o r b e t t e r income from

h a r v e s t i n g was a l s o t h e pr imary r e a s o n why such jobs were

p r e f e r r e d by workers over non-farm work. The advan tage of

r e c e i v i n g wages in-kind f o r h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g jobs i s a l s o

of pr imary importance t o workers . Workers' p r e f e r e n c e f o r

h a r v e s t i n g jobs o v e r non-farm jobs h a s a l s o been i n f l u e n c e d by

t h e workers ' a s sessment of t h e i r f i t n e s s f o r o t h e r jobs . For

example, 15% of them s t a t e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t have t h e

e d u c a t i o n o r t r a i n i n g f o r any non-farm job o r , a s f o u r p e r c e n t

a d m i t t e d , they were t o o o l d f o r non-farm jobs . Some workers

b e l i e v e d t h a t they would r a t h e r s t i c k t o h a r v e s t i n g jobs

because they a r e more exper ienced d o i n g them t h a n any non-farm

job. Although h a r v e s t i n g jobs a r e a s s e a s o n a l a s most

non-farm jobs l i k e c a r p e n t r y , they l a s t e d f o r a l o n g e r

d u r a t i o n a s c la imed by f i v e p e r c e n t of t h e workers .

Twenty-one p e r c e n t of t h e workers i n d i c a t e d p r e f e r e n c e

f o r non-farm over h a r v e s t i n g jobs i f on ly they were q u a l i f i e d

and t h a t non-farm jobs were a v a i l a b l e . About h a l f of t h e

workers e i t h e r wanted cash income o r b e l i e v e d t h a t income from

non-farm jobs were h i g h e r than t h o s e from h a r v e s t i n g and

Table 50. F r e f e r e n c e f o r h a r v e s t i n g over non-farm j o b s , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a y 1982.

I R R I GATED RAINFED

Landless Sma 1 1 Landless Sma 1 1 A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers 44 Workers who p r e f e r :

H a r v e s t i n g t h r e s h i n g jobs 33 Non-farm jobs 11

Reasons f o r pref e r i n g h a r v e s t i n g t h r e s h i n g jobs :

~ i ~ h e r / b e t t e r income Payment i n k i n d / f ood Lack of educa t ion or

t r a i n i n g

number r e ~ o r t i n e

T a b l e 50 ( c o n t i n u e d )

REASON IRRIGATED RAI NFED

Land les s Sma 1 1 L a n d l e s s Smal l A 11 Farmer Farmer

More e x p e r i e n c e d i n h a r v e s t i n g 2 4 6

Too o l d f o r non-farming jobs 1 1 3

S e a s o n a l i t y of non- farm job 1 2

No r e a s o n 4 4

Reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g non-farm jobs :

Farm work d i f f i c u l t 2 Want c a s h income 4 Higher income i n non-

farm jobs 1 Seasona l h a r v e s t i n g j o b s 3 D e c l i n i n g h a r v e s t i n g j o b s 1

t h r e s h i n g . A t h i r d of them b e l i e v e d t h a t non-farm jobs were

l e s s d i f f i c u l t or p h y s i c a l l y t a x i n g compared t o farm work.

The r e s t of t h e workers remarked t h a t h a r v e s t i n g jobs were

s e a s o n a l and t h a t t h e volume of such jobs had d e c l i n e d due t o

changes i n l a n d use and t h e r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n farm p o p u l a t i o n

r e s u l t i n g t o s t i f f e r c o m p e t i t i o n f o r such j o b s .

Workers' Assessment of Jobs and Wages

S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e v e l of wages. Only 59% of t h e

workers i n t e r v i e w e d expressed contentment w i t h t h e r a t e s of

payment they r e c e i v e d i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g jobs (Tab le 51 ).

For ty - seven p e r c e n t had no compla in t s abou t t h e p r e s e n t

l e v e l s of wages s imply because they were t h e p r e v a i l i n g r a t e s

and n o t h i n g can be done about them. The p r e s e n t range of

wages was c o n s i d e r e d by workers t o be f a i r i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

amount of l a b o r they pu t i n t h e p r o c e s s and t h e y i e l d l e v e l s

o b t a i n e d under t h e new r i c e technology. Small farmer-hi red

l a b o r e r s f e l t t h a t t h e wages they r e c e i v e d were on ly f a i r

inasmuch a s they themselves a l s o h i r e d workers f o r h a r v e s t i n g .

Any i n c r e a s e i n r a t e s would a f f e c t t h e i r incomes a s farm

o p e r a t o r s .

Table 51. Workers' s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e v e l of wages o r s h a r e s i n k i n d , 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

IRRIGATED RAINFED

ITEM Land1 e s s Sma 1 1 L a n d l e s s Smal l A l l Fa rme r Farmer

Number of workers Workers d i s s a t i s f i e d Workers s a t i s f i e d

Reasons f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n : P r e v a i l i n g r a t e s 13 F a i r t o both farmers and

workers 6 C o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v a i l i n g

p r i c e l e v e l s 4 Farmers a r e r e l a t i v e s /

neighbors -

number r e p o r t i n g

Workers were a l s o s a t i s f i e d wi th t h e l e v e l of wages a s

they were c o r l s i s t e n t wi th t h e p r e v a i l i n g p r i c e l e v e l s of o t h e r

goods and t h e wage l e v e l s f o r o t h e r jobs . They mentioned t h a t

the p r e s e n t l e v e l s were a l i t t l e h i g h e r than s e v e r a l y e a r s

back and they expec ted t h e wages t o be a d j u s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o

what t h e p r i c e l e v e l s would be i n t h e f u t u r e . Some

responden t s were s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e pay they r e c e i v e d because

t h e i r employers were e i t h e r r e l a t i v e s o r ne ighbors from whom

they can a s k h e l p a t t imes .

Adequacy of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g jobs . Workers

were a lmost e q u a l l y d i v i d e d i n t h e i r a p p r a i s a l of t h e

s u f f i c i e n c y of a v a i l a b l e h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g jobs .

F i f t y - f i v e p e r c e n t observed t h a t such jobs were a d e q u a t e w h i l e

45% remarked o t h e r w i s e (Tab les 5 2 ) .

Most of t h o s e workers who r e p o r t e d adequacy of h a r v e s t i n g

and t h r e s h i n g jobs e i t h e r were s m a l l f a rmers who had t h e i r own

farms t o work o r had a number of p l o t s they h a r v e s t e d

r e g u l a r l y . H a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g jobs were d e f i n i t e l y o n l y

a form of supplementary work f o r s m a l l f a r m e r s .

The p resence of enough farms t o h a r v e s t f o r t h e number of

a v a i l a b l e workers provided adequa te h a r v e s t i n g jobs a s

r e p o r t e d by 23% of t h e responden t s . An equa l p r o p o r t i o n of

workers was a b l e t o keep a n a d e q u a t e volume of h a r v e s t i n g jobs

by m a i n t a i n i n g good r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h p r o s p e c t i v e farmer

Table 52. Adequacy of h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g j o b s , 100 workers , Nueva Eci ja , 1982.

IRRIGATED RAINFED

ITEM Landless Sma 1 1 Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers Workers r e p o r t i n g :

Adequate jobs I n a d e q u a t e jobs

Reasons f o r adequacy:

Regular jobs 5 Enough farms t o h a r v e s t 1 Good r e l a t i o n s o r

performance 7 Harves t o u t s i d e v i l l a g e 2 Limited p h y s i c a l c a p a b i l i t y 1 Ext ra e f f o r t 3

number r e p o r t i n g

Table 52 ( c o n t i n u e d )

IRRIGATED RAINFED ITEM

Landless Sma 1 1 Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Reasons f o r inadequacy: :

P l e n t y of workers 14 Limited a r e a t o h a r v e s t 5 Farmers s e l e c t l l i m i t

workers 4 Old age 2 One c rop o n l y -

employers o r pe r fo rming w e l l i n t h e i r jobs t o e n s u r e f u t u r e

employment.

Some r e s o u r c e f u l workers c la imed t h a t even i f t h e

a v a i l a b l e h a r v e s t i n g jobs might seem i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r a l l

workers i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e , they s t i l l f e l t t h e jobs a r e

adequa te because they can h a r v e s t i n t h e n e i g h b o r i n g v i l l a g e s

a f t e r t h e r e g u l a r h a r v e s t p e r i o d i n t h e i r own p l a c e s . The

r e s t of t h e s a t i s f i e d workers commented t h a t t h e number of

h a r v e s t i n g jobs they had were a d e q u a t e enough c o n s i d e r i n g t h e y

had l i m i t e d p h y s i c a l c a p a b i l i t y .

Workers who e x e r t e d e x t r a e f f o r t were a b l e t o have

adequa te jobs . This meant i n i t i a t i n g t h e work e a r l y and

r e t i r i n g l a t e i n t h e a f t e rnoon . Workers who approached

farmers p e r s o n a l l y t o a s k f o r work o r a c c e p t e d a l l o f f e r s even

i f c r o p s were damaged never r a n o u t of j o b s .

Table 52. shows t h a t 67% of t h e r e a s o n s c i t e d f o r t h e

inadequacy of h a r v e s t i n g jobs was t h e o v e r supp ly of workers

i n t h e v i l l a g e s . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , t h e problem was

t r a c e d t o t h e i n c r e a s e d number of l a n d l e s s l a b o r e r s who have

come and s e t t l e d permanently i n t h o s e v i l l a g e s and t o t h e

temporary migran t o r workers coming t o t h e v i l l a g e from

r a i n f e d o r non-r ice a r e a s d u r i n g t h e h a r v e s t s e a s o n .

Even workers who had r e g u l a r a r e a s t o h a r v e s t c o n s i d e r e d

t h a t t h e a r e a t o h a r v e s t had become l i m i t e d . S i n c e t h e r e were

p l e n t y of workers and t h a t o p e r a t i o n s needed t o be f i n i s h e d i n

t h e s h o r t e s t t ime p o s s i b l e , workers had l i t t l e a r e a t o work on

a f t e r one farm. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of machines f a c i l i t a t e d

t h r e s h i n g t o be accomplished on a l a r g e number of farms o v e r a

s h o r t p e r i o d . Nine p e r c e n t of t h e workers complained t h a t

farmer employers had become s e l e c t i v e i n choos ing t h e i r

workers , g i v i n g p r i o r i t y o r even l i m i t i n g work on ly t o

r e l a t i v e s o r t o those who r e n d e r e x t r a work i n o t h e r farm

o p e r a t i o n s . This p r a c t i c e might l ead t o t h e beg inn ing of a

ar rangement s i m i l a r t o t h e "gama" sys tem p r a c t i c e d i n Laguna

of e a r n i n g t h e r i g h t t o h a r v e s t a p l o t by weeding t h e same f o r

f r e e . Th i s c a s e , however, was not r e p o r t e d i n t h e r a i n f e d

v i 1 l a g e s . Workers r e p o r t e d a n inadequacy of h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g jobs because t h e r e was on ly one c r o p of r i c e t h a t

was grown i n t h e i r a r e a . During t h e h a r v e s t , however, t h e y

f i n d a d e q u a t e jobs f o r themselves .

Assessment of P r e s e n t Condi t ions

The p r e s e n t compared w i t h f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e . Changes

i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements have a f f e c t e d workers

d i f f e r e n t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n s . About 60% of them f e l t

t h a t t h e i r p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n is b e t t e r t h a n i t was f i v e y e a r s

ago (Tab le 53). This p e r c e n t a g e was abou t 75% of t h e workers

i n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s and o n l y 43% i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s

where t h e p r o p o r t i o n of l a n d l e s s workers who c o n s i d e r e d t h e

p r e s e n t e i t h e r b e t t e r , worse o r t h e same was a l m o s t e q u a l t o

o n e - t h i r d each. Half of t h e s m a l l f a rmers i n t h i s a r e a f e l t

t h e p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n s a r e b e t t e r .

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , most workers a t t r i b u t e d t h i s

improvement t o t h e a d o p t i o n of s m a l l mechan ica l t h r e s h e r s

r e p l a c i n g manual hand b e a t i n g . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h r e s h i n g

machines removed t h e p h y s i c a l s t r a i n s workers used t o e x e r t i n

hand b e a t i n g and enab led them t o r e c e i v e t h e i r h a r v e s t i n g

s h a r e s much f a s t e r than b e f o r e . I n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s , t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y of more farms t o h a r v e s t was a s t r o n g r e a s o n f o r

t h e improved w e l f a r e of workers . S i n c e a ma jo r p o r t i o n of t h e

r a i n f e d a r e a t h a t used t o be l a r g e e s t a t e s had been

s u b d i v i d e d , t h e r e emerged more farm u n i t s under d i f f e r e n t

o p e r a t o r s .

Workers from bo th s i t e s r ecogn ized t h e f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t

of o b t a i n i n g more s h a r e s because r i c e y i e l d s had i n c r e a s e d .

The expans ion of a r e a s p r e s e n t l y i r r i g a t e d r e s u l t e d i n t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y of more h a r v e s t i n g jobs . I r r i g a t i o n s c h e d u l e s

enhanced s t a g g e r e d h a r v e s t i n g t h a t e n a b l e d workers t o move

from one h a r v e s t i n g a r e a t o a n o t h e r . There was a l s o men t ion

Table 53. Reasons why workers c o n s i d e r themselves b e t t e r today t h a n 5 y e a r s ago, 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

IRRIGATED RAI NFED

I TEM Landless Small Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers c o n s i d e r t h e p r e s e n t

B e t t e r Worse Same

Reasons f o r c o n s i d e r i n g p r e s e n t i s b e t t e r : Avai l a b i 1 i t y of

t h r e s h i n g machines Get s h a r e s s o o n e r Higher y i e l d s More farm t o h a r v e s t More i r r i g a t e d farms More generous farmers

number r e p o r t i n g

about t h e i n c r e a s e d g e n e r o s i t y of farmer employers under t h e

new r i c e technology where y i e l d s were h i g h e r .

Only one f o u r t h of t h e workers c o n s i d e r e d themselves

worse a t p r e s e n t than they were f i v e y e a r s ago and t h i s

c o n d i t i o n was p r i m a r i l y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e d e c l i n i n g r a t e s of

s h a r i n g (Table 5 4 ) . The p l i g h t of workers had been aggrava ted

by two developments , one demographic, t h e o t h e r t e c h n o l o g i c a l .

The i n c r e a s e d number of workers r e s u l t e d t o s t i f f e r

compet i t ion f o r h a r v e s t i n g jobs and consequen t ly t o a d e c r e a s e

i n t h e volume of a v a i l a b l e h a r v e s t jobs f o r each worker.

Workers i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s complained t h a t mechanical

t h r e s h e r s had d i s p l a c e d them, l e a v i n g them l e s s work t o do and

consequen t ly , l e s s e r pay.

Two changes i n t h e c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s of some farmers

were a l s o mentioned a s causes of t h e worsening c o n d i t i o n of

worker. The p r a c t i c e of b r o a d c a s t i n g o r d i r e c t s e e d i n g has

rep laced t r a n s p l a n t i n g r i c e because of t h e h igh wages f o r

t r a n s p l a n t i n g . Broadcast r i c e was more l a b o r i o u s t o h a r v e s t

than t r a n s p l a n t e d r i c e which meant l e s s s h a r e s f o r more o r

equal t ime and energy f o r h a r v e s t i n g t h e same a r e a . While

i n c r e a s e d s h a r e s due t o i n c r e a s e d y i e l d s was one reason f o r

improved l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , r a i n f e d

workers blamed low y i e l d s f o r t h e i r poor c o n d i t i o n . Low

y i e l d s r e s u l t e d from d e c l i n i n g f e r t i l i z e r use due t o i t s

Table 54. Reasons why workers c o n s i d e r themse lves worse today t h a n 5 y e a r s ago, 100 w o r k e r s , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

IRRIGATED

- -

RAI NFE D

ITEM Landless Sma 1 1 Land less Sma 11 A l l f a rme r fa rmer

number r e p o r t i n g

Number of workers 44 10 20 2 6 100 Consider t h e p r e s e n t

Worse 7 2 7 8 24 Same 4 1 6 5 16 B e t t e r 33 7 7 13 60

Reasons f o r c o n s i d e r i n g p r e s e n t worse: S h a r i n g r a t e s d e c l i n e d 7 I n c r e a s e d number of

workers 5 Threshers d i s p l a c e d

workers 5 Broadcasted r i c e more

l a b o r i o u s t o h a r v e s t Low y i e l d s due t o low

r a t e s of f e r t i l i z a t i o n Poor h e a l t h

p r o h i b i t i v e c o s t . Some workers observed t h a t t h e r e were a

number of c a l a m i t i e s i n the f a s t f i v e y e a r s t h a t a f f e c t e d

t h e i r income. A worker blamed h i s poor h e a l t h f o r h i s p r e s e n t

worse condi t i o n .

The p r e s e n t compared w i t h t h e f u t u r e . Almost h a l f of

workers s t u d i e d gave a dim prospec t of t h e i r c o n d i t i o n s f i v e

years ahead (Table 5 5 ) . The g r e a t e s t a n x i e t y of workers i s

t h a t t h e r e would be more peop le l o o k i n g f o r work but fewer

jobs a v a i l a b l e , both i n the farm and t h e non-fanu s e c t o r s .

The l a b o r displacement e f f e c t s of farm machines a l s o posed a

t h r e a t t o t h e workers ' c o n d i t i o n s . I n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s ,

a d d i t i o n a l smal l t h r e s h i n g machines were viewed with

t r e p i d a t i o n whi le i n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , i t i s t h e o t h e r

types of machines such a s r e a p e r s o r combines t h a t pose t h e

t h r e a t . With more machines i n u s e , whatever s m a l l t a s k s would

be l e f t f o r ~nanual workers would be p a i d o n l y minimal s h a r e s .

Some workers s t a t e d t h a t g e t t i n g o l d would mean l e s s h a r v e s t

work f o r them.

One-fourth of t h e workers a n t i c i p a t e d a b e t t e r f u t u r e .

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s s i t u a t e d n e a r Cabanatuan C i t y ,

workers f o r e s e e t h a t i n c r e a s i n g i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n i n urban

a r e a s would a t t r a c t o r absorb t h e excess l a b o r a v a i l a b l e i n

t h e r u r a l a r e a s . I f t h i s p r o s p e c t happens , workers b e l i e v e d

Table 55. Workers p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n i n t h e next 5 y e a r s , 100 workers , Nueva E c i j a , 1982.

I R R I G4TED RAINFED

ITEM L a n d l e s s Small Land less Small A l l Farmer Farmer

Number of workers Consider t h e f u t u r e :

Worse B e t t e r Same Don ' t know

Reasons f o r a worse f u t u r e : More peop le and l e s s j o b s 1 9 Machines w i l l d i s p l a c e l a b o r 14 Rates w i l l d e c r e a s e 6 G e t t i n g o l d e r

number r e p o r t i n g

T a b l e 55 ( c o n t i n u e d )

ITEM I R R I GATED RAI NFED

L a n d l e s s Sma 1 1 L a n d l e s s S m a l l A 1 1 Farmer Farmer

Reasons f o r a b e t t e r f u t u r e :

I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n w i l l a t t r a c t l a b o r

H ighe r y i e l d e x p e c t e d Highe r wages I r r i g a t i o n e x p e c t e d J u s t h o p e f u l

t h a t farm wages would i n c r e a s e . One s o u r c e of t h e workers '

optimism about t h e f u t u r e was t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t y i e l d s

would con t inue t o i n c r e a s e i n t h e y e a r s t o come. The h i g h e r

wages mentioned has r e f e r e n c e t o b e t t e r s h a r e s due t o b e t t e r

y i e l d s , h i g h e r farm wages i f e x c e s s l a b o r would l e a v e t h e

r u r a l a r e a s and l e s s work f o r t h e same pay. I t might t a k e more

than f i v e y e a r s but r a i n f e d fa rmers were e x p o r t i n g t h a t

g r a v i t y i r r i g a t i o n would soon reach t h e i r v i l l a g e s t o p rov ide

two crops a y e a r t o i n c r e a s e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g jobs . Other

p o s s i b i l i t i e s such a s double c ropp ing w i t h s h o r t season

v a r i e t i e s o r m u l t i p l e c ropp ing u t i l i z i n g r e s i d u a l s o i l

m o i s t u r e f o l l o w i n g t h e main crop would a l s o enhance employment

p r o s p e c t s i n t h e s e r a i n f e d v i l l a g e s .

P o p u l a t i o n , S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n , I n s t i t u t i o n s , S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s , Technology and Harves t ing-

Thresh ing Arrangements: A Comprehensive View

Like o t h e r s o c i a l sys tems , t h e r u r a l v i l l a g e s of San

I s i d r o , Lagare , Caalibangbangan, Galvan, San Andres and Bun01

a r e p r e d i s p o s e d t o change due t o both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l

f a c t o r s . I n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s i n c l u d e d i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n ,

p e r e n n i a l r e s o u r c e s c a r c i t y and c o n t r a s t i n g s o c i a l o r economic

i n t e r e s t s . I n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s i n c l u d e d i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n ,

p e r e n n i a l r e s o u r c e s c a r c i t y and c o n t r a s t i n g s o c i a l o r economic

i n t e r e s t s . P o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e made c o m p e t i t i o n f o r j o b s more

s t i f f . Land lessness i n c r e a s e d because t h e r e is a l i m i t t o t h e

s i z e t h a t farms can be d i v i d e d . Farmers ' i n t e r e s t s a r e

o p p o s i t e t h o s e of t h e workers w i t h r e g a r d s t o a s h a r e of t h e

bounty. E x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s were brought about by t echno logy ,

government i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and l and reform programs. The

changes i n v a l u e s , a t t i t u d e s , work methods and l a b o r

ar rangements could no t be a t t r i b u t e d t o a s p e c i f i c f a c t o r nor

could t h e e f f e c t of one f a c t o r be v e r y s p e c i f i c . I n o t h e r

words, t h e whole system is a f f e c t e d because t h e sys tem i s

composed of s e v e r a l p a r t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s and any e f f e c t i n

one p a r t o r r e l a t i o n would l i k e l y have a n e f f e c t on t h e r e s t .

Labor Arrangements

The e v o l u t i o n and p reva lence of d i f f e r e n t l a b o r

ar rangements i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g i n t h e i r r i g a t e d

a r e a s were markedly d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s .

The l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r had been i n u s e i n Nueva

E c i j a a s e a r l y a s t h e 1920 ' s . The t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t i e s of

r i c e t h a t were grown, matured and were h a r v e s t e d mos t ly i n

November when t h e r a i n y s e a s o n was over . I t was t h e n s a f e t o

s t o r e t h e c u t s t a l k s i n t h e f i e l d i n b i g s t a c k s o r 'manda las '

b e f o r e t h e t h r e s h i n g machines a r r i v e d . I r r i g a t i o n was

e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e ~ a b a n a t u a n v i l l a g e s i n 1966-67 and two t o

t h r e e y e a r s l a t e r , t h e modern v a r i e t i e s of r i c e came i n t o use .

These s h o r t - m a t u r i n g v a r i e t i e s a r e h a r v e s t e d b e f o r e t h e r a i n y

s e a s o n ends. During t h e wet s e a s o n , t h e h a r v e s t e d c r o p s had t o

be h a u l e d f o r long d i s t a n c e s t o h i g h e r , d r y s p o t s . The new

v a r i e t i e s were r e l a t i v e l y more s h a t t e r i n g and g r a i n l o s s was

h i g h e r d u r i n g t r a n s p o r t and d e l a y s i n t h e a r r i v a l of t h e

McCormick t h r e s h e r . D e s p i t e i r r i g a t i o n and t h e modern v a r i e t i e s

of r i c e , l a n d owners h e l d on t o t h e u s e of t h e McCormick

t h r e s h e r s a s a way of c o n t r o l l i n g o u t p u t and r e n t . I n 1972, t h e

Land Reform Decree was immedia te ly implemented i n t h e p r o v i n c e

t o c o n v e r t a l l s h a r e t e n a n t s t o e i t h e r l e a s e h o l d e r s o r

a m o r t i z i n g owners. Under t h e new t e n u r e a r r a n g e m e n t s , t h e

f a rmers became f r e e t o choose t h e i r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g

methods. A f t e r land reform t h e r e was a r a p i d s h i f t from t h e

McCormick t h r e s h e r t o hand b e a t i n g method. H a r v e s t i n g ,

t h r e s h i n g and c l e a n i n g a r e done by t h e same workers f o r a s h a r e .

Paddy was t h r e s h e d by b e a t i n g a g a i n s t a frame o r a l o g w h i l e

c l e a n i n g was accompl ished u s i n g wind power. This new

arrangement gave o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r more workers t o p a r t a k e of

t h e h a r v e s t . I n s t e a d of p a y i n g machines owned by r i c h

landowners , paddy income a l l went t o t h e manual h a r v e s t e r -

t h r e s h e r s . I n o t h e r words, t h e r e was a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of income

from v i l l a g e r e s o u r c e s . There were two r e a s o n s why t h e s h i f t

was r a p i d . F i r s t , i t was a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e f a r m e r ' s d i s l i k e

f o r t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r a s a symbol of t h e e x p l o i t a t i v e

powers of t h e landowners. Second, t h e s h i f t was r a p i d because

t h e method was compat ib le wi th t h e p r e v a i l i n g c o n d i t i o n s i . e . ,

t he p resence of i r r i g a t i o n and t h e u s e of modern r i c e v a r i e t i e s .

The hunusan method ha s been t h e e s t a b l i s h e d

h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements u n t i l t h e IRRI-designed s m a l l

a x i a l f low t h r e s h e r s were i n t r o d u c e d i n 1978. Adoption was

completed w i t h i n two y e a r s . H a r v e s t e r s a r e pa id a s e p a r a t e

s h a r e and t h e machine is pa id a f e e based on g r o s s p roduc t

t h r e s h e d .

I n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s , t h e use of McCormick t h r e s h e r s

p e r s i s t e d d e s p i t e l and reform and t h e modern v a r i e t i e s of

r i c e . Cropping p a t t e r n d id n o t change. Only one c r o p of r i c e

remained t o be p l a n t e d even i f t h e new v a r i e t i e s were s h o r t

matur ing. There was no w a t e r f o r a second c rop . The most

v i s i b l e e f f e c t of l and reform was t h e absence of t h e

l a n d l o r d s ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e who oversaw o p e r a t i o n s and s h a r i n g .

I t gave fa rmers freedom t o choose h i s methods o r workers , and

proceed wi th t h e o p e r a t i o n wi thou t t h e l andowner ' s c o n s e n t .

Changes i n Terms of P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e ~ a r v e s t i n g - T h r e s h i n g Tasks.

Number, s o u r c e and t y p e of l a b o r . The p o p u l a t i o n

f a c t o r accoun ted f o r most of t h e changes i n t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n

a s p e c t s of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s i n g . With more t h a n enough

workers , farmers l o s e more. More g r a i n s a r e l o s t when a n

u n l i m i t e d number of workers t r y t o h a r v e s t a s much a r e a a s

they cou ld i n t h e s h o r t e s t t ime p o s s i b l e . The a g g r e g a t e

q u a n t i t y of paddy l e f t i n each heap a f t e r s h a r i n g t h a t was

v e n t u a l l y g i v e n t o t h e workers was s u b s t a n t i a l . R e a l i z i n g

t h e s e l o s s e s , f a rmers have s t a r t e d t o f i n d ways t o c o n t r o l t h e

number of workers i n t h e i r farms d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g . One of

t h e s e measures was t o accomodate on ly r e l a t i v e s and v e r y c l o s e

f r i e n d s from i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e s . Workers i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e

a g i t a t e t h a t t h e y be g iven p r i o r i t y i n p a r t a k i n g of a s h a r e i n

t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s of t h e v i l l a g e . They d i d n o t want

o u t s i d e workers t o come because t h e y b e l i e v e d t h e y were enough

t o p r o v i d e t h e s e r v i c e s demanded by fa rmers . To meet t h i s

demand of v i l l a g e workers , a measure t h a t f a rmers were

c o n s i d e r i n g was t o g i v e h a r v e s t i n g r i g h t s on ly t o t h o s e

who would r e n d e r a n e x t r a s e r v i c e i n t h e o t h e r phases of r i c e

p roduc t ion . This measure i s p r o j e c t e d t o e l i m i n a t e t r a n s i e n t

workers who come on ly d u r i n g h a r v e s t i n g s i n c e i t n e c e s s i t a t e s

t h a t workers be a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g t h e p re -ha rves t p e r i o d . I n

e f f e c t , i t w i l l be t h e fa rmers who would be favored .

I n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d l e s s n e s s was a l s o t h e

reason why we observed l e s s s m a l l f a rmer -h i red l a b o r e r s

h a r v e s t i n g i n o t h e r f i e l d s . The economic p r e s s u r e t o e a r n

paddy i n k i n d from o t h e r f i e l d s i s o v e r r i d d e n by t h e s o c i a l

p r e s s u r e t o s h a r e . Thus, when s m a l l f a rmers wanted t o h a r v e s t

i n a r e l a t i v e ' s o r a f r i e n d ' s farm and s e e s t h a t some l a n d l e s s

workers have been r e j e c t e d , he would e i t h e r g i v e up t h e a r e a

i n f a v o r of them o r s h a r e them a p o r t i o n of i t .

Family l a b o r . By t h e n a t u r e of t h e h a r v e s t i n g t a s k ,

h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y h i r e d o r exchange

l a b o r a s i n t h e p a s t . The t a s k demands t h a t l a b o r be

a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n a t i g h t l y p r e s c r i b e d i n t e r v a l t o p r e v e n t

g r a i n l o s s e s and where i r r i g a t i o n s c h e d u l e i s t i g h t , t o c a t c h

up wi th i t . Would fa rmers be w i l l i n g t o do h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g wi th fami ly l a b o r a l o n e i f t h e r e i s enough t o f i n i s h

t h e t a s k w i t h i n an optimum p e r i o d ? I n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s ,

where l a c k of l a b o r i s r e c o g n i z e d , t h e r e was no cho ice . A l l

ab le-bodied f a m i l y members were h a r n e s s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n

h a r v e s t i n g because h i r e d l a b o r was o f t e n l a c k i n g . The p i c t u r e

was d i f f e r e n t i n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s where fa rmers who

h a r v e s t e d i n t h e i r own farms a r e frowned upon. Even fa rmers

who have smal l farms s h a r e d t h e h a r v e s t w i t h o t h e r s . They d i d

t h i s a s an investment i n normal t imes o r a s an i n s u r a n c e s i n

case of crop f a i l u r e s o t h a t they t o o could h a r v e s t i n o t h e r ' s

farms.

Labor Procurement

The l a b o r s i t u a t i o n i n an a r e a would w e l l e x p l a i n t h e

procurement p a t t e r n s f o r h a r v e s t i n g . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s ,

t h e workers themselves looked f o r h a r v e s t i n g jobs w h i l e i n t h e

r a i n f e d a r e a s , i t was t h e farmer employers who took t h e e f f o r t

i n o b t a i n i n g workers f o r t h e i r farms. The c o n t r a s t i n method

r e f l e c t s a c o n t r a s t i n l a b o r s i t u a t i o n . I t might seem

i r o n i c a l but t h e r e was an abundant supply of labor i n t h e

two-cropped a r e a s w h i l e i n t h e r a i n fed s ing le -c ropped a r e a s ,

t h e r e was l a c k of l a b o r . Why i s t h i s s o ?

I n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , t h e r e was an e v e r i n c r e a s i n g

number of l a n d l e s s households who have come and s e t t l e d

permanently t h e r e . These f a m i l i e s o r i g i n a t e d from t h e up land ,

r a i n f e d o r non-r ice a r e a s . The p u l l f a c t o r behind t h i s

i n t r a - r u r a l m i g r a t i o n is t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of more farm jobs i n

t h e double cropped i r r i g a t e d farms. The younger members of

t h e l a b o r f o r c e i n t h e r a i n f e d farms l e a v e i n f a v o r of

non-farm work i n t h e i n d u s t r y o r s e r v i c e s e c t o r s , depending on

t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . A l o t of them p r e f e r working f o r a few

pesos below l e g a l minimum wages than working i n t h e farm where

they a r e employed f o r on ly a s h o r t d u r a t i o n d u r i n g t h e y e a r

and l i v e i n extreme pover ty t h e r e s t of t h e t ime .

Determinat ion of S h a r i n g and Wage Ra tes

Labor arrangements and pay r a t e s have become customary

i n s t i t u t i o n a l ar rangements over long p e r i o d s and over wide

a r e a s . Rates i n one a r e a a r e l i k e l y t o be based on t h e

previous y e a r s ' l e v e l s o r be t h e same a s i n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g

towns o r p rov inces . Arrangements have l o n g r e s i s t e d rnodera t e

p r e s s u r e s f o r change. However, t h e s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e of t h e

new s e e d and machinery t e c h n o l o g i e s coupled wi th a n i n c r e a s i n g

p o p u l a t i o n competing f o r t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s a 1 t e r e d t h e

e x i s t i n g sys tems . Even people ' s a t t i tudes changed. Urban i te

v a l u e s o r o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e economic r a t i o n a l i t y

subdued t r a d i t i o n a l va lues of s h a r i n g a s more cash i n p u t s and

l a b o r a r e i n v e s t e d i n t h e c r o p e n t e r p r i s e . The concern o v e r

t h e q u e s t i o n "How much was l e f t w i t h t h e fa rmer?" was r e p l a c e d

wi th "How much was pa id , o r t aken o u t from t h e produce?" S ince

p r i c e s of i n p u t s change very o f t e n e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e l a s t few

months, s h a r i n g and wage r a t e s i n h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g a r e

expected t o change a s o f t e n . Although t h e workers ' i n t e r e s t

a r e l i k e l y t o c o n f l i c t wi th t h o s e of t h e f a r m e r s , some

l e v e l l i n g mechanisms a r e expected t o work t o s a t i s f y both

f a c t i o n s . Rules of a c t i o n would be developed g r a d u a l l y s o

t h a t r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s can be s e t t l e d i n r e l a t i o n wi th

t h e use of r e s o u r c e s .

Technology C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

The I R R I des igned t h r e s h e r i s a s imple machine; one can

t r y i t f i r s t on a s m a l l p o r t i o n of h i s f i e l d b e f o r e f i n a l l y

d e c i d i n g t o use i t or n o t ; and i t i s s o easy t o demons t ra te

t o p r o s p e c t i v e u s e r s t h e advan tages and good f e a t u r e s of t h e

machine. For t h r e s h e r owners, t h e machines ' p r o f i t a b i l i t y was

demonstra ted i n t h e s h o r t pe r iod t h a t owners were a b l e t o pay

f o r t h e i r machines. Farmers who could a f f o r d a t l e a s t t h e

downpayment bought t h e i r u n i t s s o t h a t i n due t ime , enough

u n i t s were owned and o p e r a t e d by fa rmer from t h e v i l l a g e .

However, why was t h i s t h r e s h e r a d o p t e d v e r y q u i c k l y i n t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s w h i l e i n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s , f a r m e r s c o n t i n u e

t o show p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e l a r g e McCormick t h r e s h e r s ?

Compared t o manual b e a t i n g ; t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r s have a

v e r y h i g h d e g r e e of r e l a t i v e advan tage : less l o s s e s , f a s t e r

and e a s i e r t h r e s h i n g . F a s t e r t h r e s h i n g c o u n t s much where

i r r i g a t i o n i s s c h e d u l e d . The machine can t h r e s h v e r y wet

paddy h a r v e s t e d d u r i n g t h e wet months. L a n d l e s s workers were

e s p e c i a l l y b e n e f i t e d because t h e y can g e t t h e i r s h a r e s

q u i c k l y . T h r e s h e r u s e was a l s o c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s

p r a c t i c e of combined h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g by t h e same

workers . The i r r i g a t e d farms p r o v i d e d a v e r y good p h y s i c a l

s e t t i n g f o r t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r . I n t h e

r a i n f e d a r e a s , t h e r e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e s of t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r s

o v e r t h e b i g McCormick u n i t s were n o t e a s i l y v i s i b l e t o t h e

f a r m e r s , e x c e p t t h a t t h e smal l u n i t s can be moved from one

p l a c e t o a n o t h e r w i t h e a s e . T h r e s h i n g w i t h t h e McCormick

t h r e s h e r s was even f a s t e r t h a n t h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e new ones .

The re was no i r r i g a t i o n t o t i m e o p e r a t i o n s w i t h . Paddy i s

p l a n t e d o n l y once d u r i n g t h e wet months and i s h a r v e s t e d

d u r i n g t h e d r y months. Many f a r m e r s need t h e hay f o r t h e i r

a n i m a l s . Farmers wanted t h a t t h e t h r e s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s be done

i n b u l k and be f i n i s h e d i n one day s o t h a t t h e y can b e t t e r n

manage t h e i r p r o d u c t .

F u t u r e Outlook

Farmers a r e becoming i n c r e a s i n g s e l e c t i v e i n t h e c h o i c e

of workers . Workers a g i t a t e t h a t no o u t s i d e r be g iven any

h a r v e s t i n g job . These two developments a r e l i k e l y t o

i n f l u e n c e t h e a d o p t i o n of such a r rangements a s "gama" o r any

of i t s v a r i a t i o n s .

Workers a r e anx ious about t h e i r f u t u r e . They a r e

apprehens ive t h a t s h a r i n g r a t e s w i l l d e c l i n e a s t h e p r i c e s of

o t h e r i n p u t s f o r r i c e p r o d u c t i o n i n c r e a s e s and t h a t o t h e r

types of p o s t h a r v e s t machines w i l l t a k e away t h e i r jobs and

incomes. F u t u r e changes i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements

a r e viewed t o b e n e f i t on ly t h e fa rmers and machine owners.

When h a r v e s t i n g jobs a r e t a k e n over by machines , workers f a c e

dec reased incomes and i n c r e a s e d p o v e r t y and hunger . Those who

have t h e means might l e a v e f o r employment e l s e w h e r e , a c c e p t i n g

f a r below minimum l e g a l wages under poor working c o n d i t i o n s .

Others may end up j o b l e s s , t o o i n t h e c i t i e s o r o t h e r urban

p l a c e s . Those who would be l e f t beh ing might sooner be

d i s c o n t e n t e d and d i s o r d e r may n o t be f a r . The s o c i a l and

economic impacts of t e c h n o l o g i e s t o be developed shou Id

t h e r e f o r e g iven c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS A N D IMPLICATIONS

Summary

S i x types of harves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g arrangements were

i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e survey. I n t h e i r r i g a t e d v i l l a g e s , a l l

farmers u s e smal l a x i a l f low t h r e s h e r s f o r a f e e of 5.5 t o

6.5% and pay h a r v e s t e r s 1/11 t o 1/10 of t h e g r o s s h a r v e s t . I n

the r a i n f e d a r e a s , two arrangements employ l a r g e McCormick

t h r e s h e r s . I n one arrangement , a l l h a r v e s t e r s a r e paid a

d a i l y wage whi le i n t h e o t h e r one , h a r v e s t e r s a r e composed of

t h o s e who a r e pa id a d a i l y wage and t h o s e on a n exchange l a b o r

b a s i s . One arrangement paid workers a s h a r e of 1 / 7 t o 1/8 of

t h e g r o s s ou tpu t f o r manual h a r v e s t i n g , t h r e s h i n g and

c l e a n i n g . Another two arrangements u t i l i z e s m a l l mechanical

t h r e s h e r s wi th one arrangement paying h a r v e v e s t e r s a d a i l y

wage and t h e o t h e r one u s i n g h a r v e s t e r s on a n exchange b a s i s .

For a m a j o r i t y of t h e f a r m e r s , a n arrangement was

adopted because i t was t h e most common, t h e on ly one e x i s t i n g ,

recommended by t h e v i l l a g e head , o r demanded by t h e a v a i l a b l e

workers . Those who had t h e o p t i o n c h o s e a n a r r angement t h a t

employed more w o r k e r s , was c h e a p e r and f a s t e r .

Only a l i t t l e more t h a n one f o u r t h of t h e f a rmers

r e p o r t e d problems among which a r e h i g h and i r r e g u l a r wages,

l a c k of workers a t peak t imes and t h e c o n t r o l of t h e same

d u r i n g normal p e r i o d s and times. M a j o r i t y of t h e f a rmers

wanted t o l i m i t t h e h a r v e s t i n g p r i v i l e g e t o t h o s e who a r e from

i n s i d e t h e v i l l a g e and t o t h o s e who would r e n d e r e x t r a

s e r v i c e s t o them. Two t h i r d s d i d n o t want any change i n t h e

r a t e s o r modes of payments t o workers i n t h e sys t ems t h e y a r e

now a d o p t i n g .

There was a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n of women and

younger c h i l d r e n who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

o p e r a t i o n s b o t h i n t h e i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e d a r e a s . I n t h e

i r r i g a t e d a r e a s t h e s h i f t from manual b e a t i n g methods t o t h e

s m a l l t h r e s h e r t echno logy a f f o r d e d more women and c h i l d r e n

p a r t i c i p a t i o n because workers o n l y have t o c u t s t a l k s and h a u l

them w i t h i n s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s . I n t h e r a i n f e d a r e a s , worke r s

need no t p i l e s t a l k s i n t o o n e b i g s t a c k s w i t h i n a f i e l d .

The d e c l i n e i n workers coming from o u t s i d e t h e i r r i g a t e d

v i l l a g e s can be t r a c e d t o l a n d l e s s worke r s who have s e t t l e d

permanent ly t h e r e and t h e l i m i t e d chances of h a r v e s t e r s t o

move from one h a r v e s t a r e a t o a n o t h e r . Expanded i r r i g a t i o n

caused h a r v e s t i n g t o occu r a l m o s t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o v e r wide

a r e a s . ~ e c h a n i c a l t h r e s h e r s a l s o s h o r t e n e d t h e t h r e s h i n g

p e r i o d . The m a s s i v e o u t m i g r a t i o n of young worke r s from t h e

r a i n f e d a r e a s f o r c e d f a r m e r s t o g e t o u t s i d e worke r s .

Farmers had t o h i r e l a b o r f o r h a r v e s t i n g a n d t h r e s h i n g

because , fami ly l a b o r i s i n s u f f i c i e n t , t h e t a s k s a r e time-bound

and t e d i o u s f o r them, and t h e y wanted t o s h a r e t h e i r h a r v e s t

w i t h o t h e r s . However, even i f t h e a v a i l a b l e f a m i l y l a b o r i s

s u f f i c i e n t , most f a r m e r s would n o t h a r v e s t w i t h f a m i l y l a b o r

on ly b e c a u s e t h e y wanted t o s h a r e o r be a b l e t o h a r v e s t i n

o t h e r f a rms . A l s o , t h e p r a c t i c e i s n o t s o c i a l l y approved o r

t h a t f a r m e r s do n o t want fa rm work f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Almost

a l l i r r i g a t e d f a r m e r s do n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n h a r v e s t i n g and

t h r e s h i n g e x c e p t s u p e r v i s e t h e o p e r a t i o n s w h i l e a b o u t

two- th i rds o f t h e r a i n f e d f a r m e r s a r e p a r t o f t h e l a b o r f o r c e

i n h a r v e s t i n g . There was more f a m i l y l a b o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

t h e r a i n f e d t h a n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s b e c a u s e of t h e g e n e r a l

l a c k of l a b o r i n t h e l a t t e r .

The normal r a t e s o f payment f o r h a r v e s t i n g a n d / o r

t h r e s h i n g used t o be b a s e d more on t h e e x i s t i n g r a t e s i n

a d j a c e n t v i l l a g e s . Under p r e s e n t s y s t e m s , t h e p r a c t i c e o f

v i l l a g e meet ings t o s e t c u r r e n t r a t e s of payment had i n c r e a s e d

c o n s i d e r a b l y . Changes i n technology and t h e ever i n c r e a s i n g

c o s t s of p r o d u c t i o n put a p r e s s u r e on t h e sys tem t o s e t t l e t h e

r a t e s . Norma1 r a t e s a r e a l t e r e d by such f a c t o r s a s peak

s e a s o n s , c r o p c o n d i t i o n s o r weather .

~ l m o s t a l l c o n t a c t s f o r r e c r u i t i n g h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r was

made through d i r e c t d e a l s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l workers under

p r e s e n t and p a s t sys tems. For t h r e s h i n g however, most

c o n t a c t s a r e made through a g e n t s , o p e r a t o r s , machine owners o r

any combinat ion of t h e t h r e e . I n t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , two

t h i r d s of t h e workers f o r h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g p r e s e n t e d

themselves and o f f e r e d t h e i r s e r v i c e s t o t h e fa rmers . The

t r e n d was t r u e f o r t h e p a s t and p r e s e n t sys tems. I n t h e

r a i n f e d a r e a s , however, g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of farmers had t o

look f o r a v a i l a b l e workers than workers who p r e s e n t themselves

f o r work. The sources of i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y of workers were t h e farmers themselves , farmer

neighbors o r workers themselves whi le f o r workers '

performance, t h e farmers a l s o cons idered o p i n i o n s of h i s

farmer ne ighbors .

The most f a v o r a b l e development i n h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

arrangements f o r most of t h e i r r i g a t e d farmers has been t h e

a d o p t i o n of s m a l l mechanical t h r e s h e r s w h i l e i n t h e r a i n f e d

v i l l a g e s , i t was t h e con t inued u s e of t h e McCormick t h r e s h e r s .

The manual t h r e s h i n g method p r a c t i c e d a f t e r u s e of McCormick

t h r e s h e r s and b e f o r e t h e s m a l l t h r e s h e r s was r e g a r d e d

u n f a v o r a b l y by m a j o r i t y of t h e i r r i g a t e d f a r m e r s . R a i n f e d

f a r m e r s c o n s i d e r e d t h e non-uni form r a t e s o r non-compliance o f

o t h e r f a r m e r s w i t h t h e d e t e r m i n e d r a t e s f a r more u n d e s i r a b l e

t h a n t h e i n c r e a s i n g wages and t h r e s h i n g f e e s . The re was

ambiva lence of a t t i t u d e towards manual t h r e s h i n g among t h e

h a r v e s t e r - t h r e s h e r s . More worke r s from t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s

c o n s i d e r e d manual t h r e s h i n g u n f a v o r a b l e w h i l e more r a i n f e d

worke r s c o n s i d e r e d i t o t h e r w i s e . Only one r a i n f e d worker v iew

t h e u s e of s m a l l t h r e s h e r f a v o r a b l e w h i l e o v e r one t h i r d of

t h e i r i r r i g a t e d c o u n t e r p a r t s had t h e same a t t i t u d e .

Decreased incomes o v e r t h e l a s t f i v e y e a r s was r e p o r t e d

by m a j o r i t y of t h e worke r s and a t t r i b u t e d t h i s t o t h e l a b o r

d i s p l a c e m e n t caused by s m a l l t h r e s h e r s a n d t h e d e c r e a s e d

a v a i l a b i l i t y of h a r v e s t i n g a r e a p e r worker . Those who

r e p o r t e d i n c r e a s e d incomes c o n s i d e r e d i n c r e a s e d y i e l d s a n d t h e

f r a g m e n t a t i o n of l a r g e e s t a t e s i n t o s m a l l e r fa rm u n i t s unde r

d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t o r s t o have caused t h e i n c r e a s e .

How were f a r m e r s and worke r s a f f e c t e d by some changes i n

t e c h n o l o g y , i n s t i t u t i o n s and demography?

Modern v a r i e t i e s of r i c e a f f e c t e d f a r m e r s a n d worke r s i n

o p p o s i t e ways. Farmers b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c o s t of h a r v e s t i n g

and t h r e s h i n g i n c r e a s e d w h i l e workers r e p o r t e d i n c r e a s e d

s h a r e s o r income wi th t h e new s e e d s . Both groups s t a t e d t h a t

t h e new v a r i e t i e s were e a s i e r t o hand le o r r e q u i r e d l e s s l a b o r

t o h a r v e s t and t h r e s h . Some farmers b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e h igh

c o s t of growing t h e new v a r i e t i e s t r i g g e r e d t h e d e c r e a s e i n

s h a r i n g r a t e s .

F a s t e r and more conven ien t t h r e s h i n g were t h e most c i t e d

e f f e c t s of s m a l l t h r e s h e r s f o r f a rmers who a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t

u s i n g i t was l e s s expens ive add e n t a i l e d l e s s s u p e r v i s i o n

compared w i t h e i t h e r t h e Mc~ormick t h r e s h e r s o r manual

methods. For w o r k e r s , t h e most v i s i b l e e f f e c t s of t h r e s h e r

use was convenience which meant l e s s p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n , l e s s

exposure t o t h e e lements and l e s s time s p e n t p e r farm. They

a l s o r e c e i v e d t h e i r s h a r e s sooner because of f a s t e r

o p e r a t i o n s . Half t h e number of workers who r e p o r t e d i n c r e a s e d

incomes w i t h t h r e s h e r use r e p o r t e d d e c r e a s e d incomes.

The a v a i l a b i l i t y of more h a r v e s t i n g jobs was t h e most

impor tan t consequence of i r r i g a t i o n on h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g

a c t i v i t i e s . I r r i g a t i o n a l s o a l t e r e d t h e pace w i t h which

o p e r a t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t s i n c e wi th i r r i g a t i o n , t h e r e was a

need t o c a r r y o u t o p e r a t i o n s a s f a s t a s p o s s i b l e . Two c r o p s a

yea r made fa rmers more generous wi th t h e i r workers . Workers

could on ly s a y t h a t w i t h i r r i g a t i o n , t h e y cou ld h a r v e s t twice

a y e a r which meant a d d i t i o n a l food f o r them.

I n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r h a r v e s t i n g jobs and t h e

a t t e n d a n t r e s u l t of reduced incomes were t h e most impor tan t

e f f e c t s of i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n and l a n d l e s s n e s s on workers .

Farmers r e p o r t e d t h a t i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n e f f e c t e d f a s t e r

o p e r a t i o n s and made h a r v e s t i n g l a b o r cheaper . Farmers a l s o

mentioned such e f f e c t s a s i n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r jobs and

dec reased incomes f o r workers. L a n d l e s s n e s s , a c c o r d i n g t d

f a rmers produced t h e same e f f e c t s a s i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n . I n

a d d i t i o n , l a n d l e s s workers d i s p l a c e d s m a l l f a rmers i n

h a r v e s t i n g jobs .

Land reform e l i m i n a t e d t h e p resence of o v e r s e e r s d u r i n g

o p e r a t i o n s who were v e r y s t r i c t d u r i n g crop s h a r i n g . I t a l s o

gave fa rmers more independence i n d e c i d i n g when t o h a r v e s t ,

whom t o h i r e , which machine o r method t o use . Workers were

l e s s keen i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e e f f e c t s of l and reform on

ha rves t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements .

What do farmers and workers e x p e c t t o happen i n t h e

f u t u r e w i t h r e g a r d s t o h a r v e s t i n g - t h r e s h i n g a r rangements? The

e x p e c t a t i o n of d e c r e a s e i n s h a r i n g r a t e s and a n i n c r e a s e i n

t h r e s h i n g f e e s and cash wages were common t o bo th groups .

I r r i g a t e d farmers a n t i c i p a t e t h a t o t h e r k i n d s of h a r v e s t i n g o r

t h r e s h i n g machines w i l l be used i n t h e i r v i l l a g e s w h i l e t h e

r a i n f e d workers b e l i e v e d t h a t more s m a l l mechanical t h r e s h e r s

w i l l come i n t o use . Farmers a n t i c i p a t e i n c r e a s e d

mechan iza t ion of h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g , cash payment f o r

both o p e r a t i o n s and t h e a d o p t i o n of "gama" sys tem. One farmer

s t a t e d t h a t t h e a r e a a v a i l a b l e f o r h a r v e s t i n g would d i m i n i s h

c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r a t e a t which r i c e a r e a s a r e b e i n g conver ted

t o r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial a r e a s .

Farmers a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e expec ted changes were l i k e l y

to b e n e f i t them and /o r t h e machine owners more than t h e

workers. Workers had t h e same o p i n i o n .

I f workers could have t h e i r way, they wanted t h a t

s h a r i n g r a t e s o r wages f o r h a r v e s t i n g be i n c r e a s e d w h i l e t h e

more r e a l i s t i c ones wanted t h a t t h e p r e s e n t s h a r i n g r a t e s be

main ta ined . Rainfed workers wanted more s m a l l t h r e s h e r s t o be

used w h i l e t h e i r r i g a t e d workers d i d no t want any o t h e r k ind

of h a r v e s t i n g machine. Con t ra ry t o most of t h e worker ' s

d e s i r e , farmers wanted t h a t t r e n d s be towards lower s h a r i n g

r a t e s and wages. Rainfed fa rmers d e s i r e d most t h a t any r a t e

they have a g r e e d on be s t r i c t l y fo l lowed. The d e s i r e f o r t h e

s d o p t i o n of t h e "gama" system and cash payments f o r bo th

h a r v e s t i n g and t h r e s h i n g were a l s o e x p r e s s e d .

Workers and farmers s h a r e d t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n of r e a p e r s would c a u s e d e c r e a s e d s h a r e s

and income, l o s s of j o b s , hunger and p o v e r t y , mass ive

o u t m i g r a t i o n and t h a t probably d i s c o n t e n t and d i s o r d e r would

f o l l o w .

Over n i n e t y p e r c e n t of t h e workers p r e f e r r e d h a r v e s t i n g -

t h r e s h i n g jobs t o o t h e r farm jobs because t h e e f f e c t i v e d a i l y

wage i n k i n d was h i g h e r and t h e wage r e c e i v e d i s i n food form.

H a r v e s t i n g was cons ide red a n e a s i e r job and i t s d u r a t i o n

l a s t s longer than o t h e r f i e l d o p e r a t i o n s . Given a c h o i c e

between h a r v e s t i n g and n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l j o b s , t h e r e a s o n why

f o u r - f i f t h s s t i l l p r e f e r r e d h a r v e s t i n g a r e : h i g h e r income i n

h a r v e s t j o b s , k ind of payments and t h e i r f i t n e s s f o r t h e job.

Most of them f e l t t h e y d i d n o t have t h e e d u c a t i o n o r t r a i n i n g

f o r non-farm jobs . For t h o s e who p r e f e r r e d non-farm j o b s ,

t h e i r want f o r h i g h e r and cash income was t h e b a s i c r e a s o n .

A l i t t l e more than h a l f of t h e workers f e l t s a t i s f i e d

wi th t h e e x i s t i n g l e v e l of wages o r s h a r e s i n k ind because

t h e y b e l i e v e d they were f a i r enough t o both fa rmers and

workers , they were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v a i l i n g p r i c e l e v e l s o r

s imply because they were t h e p r e v a i l i n g r a t e s . Workers were

a lmost e q u a l l y d i v i d e d i n t h e i r a p p r a i s a l of t h e s u f f i c i e n c y

of a v a i l a b l e h a r v e s t i n g jobs .

There were two major r easons why workers c o n s i d e r e d

themselves b e t t e r today than f i v e y e a r s ago - t h e s e were: t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h r e s h i n g machines t h a t enab led workers t o g e t

t h e i r s h a r e s sooner and i n c r e a s e d s h a r e s due t o improved

y i e l d s . Those who f e l t t h e y were r a t h e r worse today blamed

d e c l i n i n g r a t e s of s h a r i n g f o r t h e i r l o t . Other developments

such a s i n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r j o b s , a d o p t i o n of s m a l l

t h r e s h e r s , and t h e p r a c t i c e of b r o a d c a s t i n g r i c e were a l s o

c i t e d .

About h a l f of t h e workers gave a dim p r o s p e c t of t h e i r

f u t u r e . T h e i r a n x i e t y i n c l u d e d such i d e a s t h a t t h e r e would be

more p e o l e l o o k i n g f o r h a r v e s t i n g j o b s ; o t h e r machines might

d i s p l a c e them o r they were g e t t i n g o l d e r . One f o u r t h of t h e

workers a n t i c i p a t e d a b e t t e r f u t u r e a s they f o r e s e e

i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n t o a t t r a c t farm l a b o r and y i e l d s would

c o n t i n u e t o i n c r e a s e the reby e f f e c t i n g b e t t e r incomes.

LITERATURE CITED

ANDERSON, J . , V. CORDOVA, G. DOZINA, J R . , W. JAMES, and J. ROUMASSET. 1979. Excharige l a b o r and i t s demise i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e ADC Seminar on t h e S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l P roduc t ion , Club S o l v i e n t o , Laguna .

A R N O N , I . 1981. Modernizat ion of a g r i c u l t u r e i n deve lop ing c o u n t r i e s : r e s o u r c e s , p o t e n t i a l s and problems. London: John Wiley and Sons.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK. 1977. Rural As ia : c h a l l e n g e and o p p o r t u n i t y . Singapore: F e d e r a l P u b l i c a t i o n s .

BARRAMEDA, J. 1978. A c a s e s t u d y on coconut t e n a n t fa rmers . I n : P h i l i p p i n e s Technical Board on A g r i c u l t u r a l C r e d i t . 1978. Focus on Small Fanner C r e d i t : Papers and Reports of t h e Workshop on Small Farmer C r e d i t , Legasp i Ci ty .

BAUTISTA, G. 1977. Socio-economic c o n d i t i o n s of t h e l a n d l e s s r i c e workers i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s : The l a n d l e s s of b a r r i o S t a . Lucia a s a c a s e i n p o i n t . I n : S. Hirashima ( e d . ) 1977. Hired Labor i n Rural Asia . Tokyo: I n s t i t u t e of Developing Economies.

BINSWANGER, H. and V. RUTTAN. 1978. Induced i n n o v a t i o n : technology, i n s t i t u t i o n and development. Bal t imore: The John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

BROWN, L. 1970. Seeds of change: t h e g reen r e v o l u t i o n and development i n t h e 1970 's . New York: P r a e g e r P u b l i s h e r .

BROWN, L. 1971. The s o c i a l impact of t h e g reen r e v o l u t i o n . Carnegie Endowment f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Peace. No. 581.

CASTILLO, G. 1975. D i v e r s i t y i n u n i t : t h e s o c i a l component of change i n r i c e farming i n a s i a n v i l l a g e s . I n : The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e . Changes i n Rice Farming i n S e l e c t e d Areas of Asia . Laguna.

CASTILLO, G. T. 1979. Beyond Manila: P h i l i p p i n e r u r a l problems i n p e r s p e c t i v e . Ottawa , Canada: The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Research Cente r .

CASTILLO, G.T. 1983. How p a r t i c i p a t o r y i s p a r t i c i p a t o r y development? : a rev iew of t h e p h i l i p p i n e e x p e r i e n c e . The P h i l i p p i n e I n s t i t u t e of Development S t u d i e s . Manila.

COLLER, R. 1960. B a r r i o Gacao: a s t u d y o f v i l l a g e economy and t h e s c h i s t o s o m i a s i s problem. Quezon C i t y . UP Community Development Research Counci l . S tudy S e r i e s No. 9.

CRISOSTOMO C . , W. MEYERS, T. PARIS, J R . , B. DUFF and R. BARKER. 1971. The new r i c e t echno logy and l a b o r a b s o r p t i o n i n P h i l i p p i n e a g r i c u l t u r e . The Malayan Economic Review. 1 6 ( 2 ) .

DEMSETZ, H. 1967. Toward a t h e o r y of p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . American Economic Review. Papers and Proceed ings . 57 ( 2 ) .

EISENDADT, S. 1964. I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and change. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 3 9 ( 2 ) .

FAIRCHILD, H. P. 1944. D i c t i o n a r y of s o c i o l o g y . New York: P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y .

FOSTER, G. 1962. T r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r e s and t h e impact of t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. New York. Harper and Row P u b l i s h e r s .

HAYAMI , Y. and V. RUTTAN. 1971. A g r i c u l t u r a l development: a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Ba l t imore : The John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

HAYAMI , Y. and M. KIKUCHI. 1980. Inducements t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n s i n an a g r a r i a n community. Economic Development and C u l t u r a l Change. 29.

H A Y A M I , Y. and M. K I K U C H I . 1981. As ian v i l l a g e economy a t t h e c r o s s r o a d s : an economic approach t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l change. Tokyo: U n i v e r s i t y of Tokyo P r e s s .

HEWES, L. 1974. Rural development: world f r o n t i e r . A m e s , Iowa: S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

HIRASHIMA, S. 1977. ired l a b o r i n r u r a l ~ s i a : problems and i s s u e s . I n : S. Hirashima ( e d ) . Hired Labor i n Rura l As ia . Tokyo, Japan : I n s t i t u t e o f Developing Economies.

HORTON, P. and C. HUNT. Sociology. 5 t h E d i t i o n . McGraw-Hi11 Kogakusha , L t d . , Tokyo. 1980.

JOHNSTON, B. and J. CONNIE. 1969. The s e e d - f e r t i l i z e r r e v o l u t i o n and l a b o r f o r c e a b s o r p t i o n . American Economic Review.

JUAREZ, F. AND B. DUFF. 1979. The economic and i n s t i t u t i o n a l impact of mechanical t h r e s h i n g i n I l o i l o and Laguna. The Consequences of Small Rice Farm Mechanizat ion P r o j e c t Working Paper No. 1 .

K I K U C H I , M . , V. CORDOVA, E. MARCIANO and Y. HAYAMI. 1979. Changes i n r i c e h a r v e s t i n g systems i n C e n t r a l Luzon and Laguna. I R R I Research Paper S e r i e s No. 31. J u l y .

LEDESMA, A. 1982. Land less workers and r i c e farmers : peasan t s u b c l a s s e s under a g r a r i a n reforms i n two P h i l i p p i n e v i l l a g e s . Los Banos , Laguna: The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e .

MOORE, W. 1960. A r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e t h e o r i e s of s o c i a l change. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 25 ( 6 ) .

MORAN, P. and E. CASILLAN. 1981. The consequences of farm mechanizat ion p r o j e c t - s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n : P h i l i p p i n e s . The Consequences of Small Rice Farm Mechanizat ion P r o j e c t Working Paper No. 34.

MOSHER, A. 1966. G e t t i n g a g r i c u l t u r e moving: e s s e n t i a l s f o r development and modernizat ion. Singapore: F. P raeger , I n c .

NORTH, D. and R. THOMAS. 1971. The r i s e and f a l l of t h e manoria l system: a t h e o r e t i c a l approach. J o u r n a l of Economic His t o r y . 31.

PALACPAC, A. 1982. World r i c e s t a t i s t i c s . Los Banos, Laguna: The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rice Research I n s t i t u t e .

PETER, H. W. ( e d . ) 1966. Comparative t h e o r i e s of s o c i a l change. Michigan: Foundat ion f o r Research on Human Behavior.

PLANAS, T., T. MATIAS, C. MALABANAN, L. SORIANO, D. BAGTAS, D. DOMINGO, and E. MAGSINO. 1978. Opera t ions of h a r v e s t e r s and t h r e s h e r s i n C e n t r a l Luzon. S p e c i a l S t u d i e s D i v i s i o n , P lann ing S e r v i c e . O f f i c e of t h e M i n i s t e r . M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e . Di l iman, Quezon C i t y . May.

ROUMASSET, J. R. 1979. Economic p e r s p e c t i v e on i n t e r n a t i o n a l change. I n t r o d u c t o r y remarks a t t h e ADC Seminar on S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l P roduc t ion , Club S o l v i e n t o , Laguna .

SCOTT, J. 1976. The moral economy of t h e peasan t : r e b e l l i o n and s u b s i s t e n c e i n Sou theas t Asia . New Haven and London. Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

SMITH, J. and F. CASCON. 1979. The e f f e c t s of t h e new r i c e technology on fami ly l a b o r u t i l i z a t i o n i n Laguna. I R R I Saturday Seminar Paper. August 11.

SMITH, J., V. CORDOVA and R. HERDT. 1981. Trends i n l a b o r a b s o r p t i o n and e a r n i n g s : t h e c a s e of r i c e p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s . Paper p repared f o r t h e 1981 Annual Meeting of t h e I n d i a n S o c i e t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics.

TAKAHASHI, A. 1979. E x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t ar rangements i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e a g r i c u l t u r e . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e ADC Seminar on t h e S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l P roduc t ion . Laguna .

TODARO, M. 1981. Economic development i n t h e t h i r d world. New York. Longman, I n c .

MQUERO, Z. , C. MARANAN, L. EBRON and B. DUFF. 1977. A s s e s s i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e l o s s e s i n r i c e pos t -p roduc t ion systems. A g r i c u l t u r a l Mechanizat ion i n As ia . 29:3. Summer.

TORRE, VIVIEN DELA. 1979. C o n t r a c t u a l ar rangements i n l a b o r u t i l i z a t i o n : t h e c a s e of r i c e farming i n s e l e c t e d a r e a s of t h e P h i l i p p i n e s . Unpublished MA t h e s i s . UP School of Economics. Quezon C i t y .