CHAPTER-III CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Transcription

1 CHAPTER-III CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW

2 CHAPTER-III CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW 3.0 Introduction: Productivity is not a synonym of fertility. It is generally used to express the power of agriculture in a particular region to produce crops without regard to whether that power is due to the bounty of nature or to the efforts of man. On the other hand, fertility denotes the ability of soil to provide all the essential plant nutrients in available form and in a suitable balance for the plant growth. In recent years many attempts have been made to define the connotation of agricultural productivity and a considerable amount of literature exists on this subject The Concept of Agricultural Productivity: A Clarification Agricultural productivity may be defined as the ratio of the index of total agricultural output to the index of total input used in farm production. It is, therefore, measure of the efficiency with which inputs are utilized in production, other things being equal. According to Dewett, Productivity expresses the 1. F. Dovring, Productivity of Labour in Agricultural Production, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No.726, College of Agriculture, Urban, University of Illinois, I967;iD. D. Dursot and G. T. Barton, Changing Sources of Farm Output, Production Research Report NoJ6, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Washington D. C. 1960;yl. Horring, Concept of Productivity Measurement on a National Scale, OECD, Documentation in Food and Agriculture No.27, Paris, 1964;Uj. W. Kendrick, Productivity Trends in United States General Series 71, Princentah National Bureau of Economic research,^1961 A. Loomis and G. T. Barton, Productivity of Agriculture in the United States , Technical, Bulletin 1238 USDA, Agricultural Research Services, Washington, D.C., 1961 ^The State of Food and Agriculture, F.A.O. Rome, 1963; Y. Hayami, and V. W. Ruttan, Agricultural Productivity Differences among Countries. The American Economic Review, Vol. 60 No ;$T. Shishido, Japanses Agriculture : Productivity Trend and Development of Technique, Journal of Farm Economics,, Vol. 43, 1961;";?. C. Van den Noort, Agricultural Productivity in Western Europe, Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 15, No.2, 1967?&ymposium on Measurement of Agricultural Productivity, Journal of Indian Society of Agricultural Statiifs, Vol.17, No.2, 1965;f>RegionaI Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, 1964s\Productivity, Special Issue on Agricultural Productivity, National Productivity, Council Journal, Vol. 6 Nos. 2 and 3, 1965.

3 71 varying relationship between agricultural output and one of the major inputs, like land or labour or capital, other complementary factors remaining the same... It may be borne in mind, that productivity is physical rather than a value concept.2. The connotation of agricultural productivity engaged the attention of many economists at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics3. Some economists suggested, that the yield per acre should be considered to indicate agricultural productivity. A number of objections were raised against this view because it considered only land which is just one factor of production while other factors are also responsible, and that, therefore, it was arbitrary to attribute productivity entirely to land and express it per acre of land. It was suggested, for instance, that productivity could also be measured in terms of per unit of labour and different regions compared on that basis. It was pointed out further, that the average returns per unit of scarce resource does not depict the true picture, therefore instead of it, the marginal returns per unit of the scarce resource should be considered. This definition appears to be more meaningful than others, but gives rise to a lot of practical difficulties. After a thorough discussion, it was generally agreed that the yield per acre may be considered to represent the agricultural productivity in a particular region, and that other factors of production be considered as the possible causes for the variation while comparing it with the other regions4. Pandit has stated the connotation of productivity in these words, Productivity is defined in economics 2. K. K. Dewett and G. Singh, Indian Economics, Delhi, P For thorough discussion on this issue, see Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No.l, 1964, pp See the summary of group discussion, Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity, op. cit., pp

4 72 as the output per unit of input... the art of securing an increase in output from the same input or of getting the same output from a smaller input 5. He further suggests, that increases in productivity, whether in industry or agriculture, is generally the result of a more efficient use of some or of all the factors of production, viz., land, labour and capital. According to Saxon basically, productivity is a physical relationship between output and the input which gives rise to that output6. Horring7 defines the term productivity, that it is generally used rather broadly to denote the ratio of output to any or all associated inputs, in real term. There are many different concepts of productivity, and still more ways for computing it. The Chairman of the International Commission on Agricultural Typology, Prof. Kostrowicki, invited different views on this problem by sending a questionnaire to over 100 scholars throughout the world, which embodied the following two questions: 1. What methods, of measuring intensity of agriculture should be applied in typological studies of various orders? 2. What methods, measures and indices should be used to define land, labour and capital productivity of agriculture in typological studies of various orders? About fifty Geographers and Economists from all over the world responded and suggested various approaches to the measurement of agricultural intensity and productivity. The Chairman of the Commission while evaluating the 5. A. D. Pandit, Application of Productivity Concept to Indian Agriculture, Productivity, Special Issue on Agricultural productivity, 6, (2 and 3) 196S, p E. A. Saxon, Special Concepts of Productivity, ibid., p J. Horring, Concept of Productivity Measurement on a National Scale, OECD, Documentation in Food and Agriculture NO.27, Paris 1964 p. 10.

5 73 different views pointed out, that a special study for testing various methods and techniques to be used in the studies of various scales were needed 8. Productivity of agriculture so far has been looked at from different points of view, such as productivity of land, labour and capital. These are the best known partial productivity measures. 3.1(a) Productivity of Land: Attention may specially focussed on the productivity of land, because it is the most permanent and fixed among the three conventional categories of inputs (land, labour and capital) and in recent times has assumed special importance with the population explosions. Land on regional or unit basis expresses yield of crops in terms of output, and from a national point of view, it is desirable to secure the employment of the greatest number of persons. Productivity of land is obviously of primary importance in countries with a high density of population. Where land resources are limited, the principal means of raising production to keep pace with the growth of population and the demand for improved diets is by raising yields per hectare. Raising the productivity of land, however, does not mean only raising the yields of individual crops. It encompasses the whole output of a farm or country in relation to the total area of farm land, and may be raised also by changing the pattern of production toward more intensive systems of cultivation or towards higher value crops. The productivity of land may be increased by raising multiple crops in a year on the same land as the farmers of Japan, China (Taiwan), or 8. Proceedings of the International Commission of Agricultural Typology (unpublished), Warsaw, 1966.

6 74 United Arab Republic are doing. It may be increased also by progressively changing land from low-value crops to high-value crops. Here a distinction must be made between the concepts of measurement of agricultural output in terms of calories (or some other measurement of food values), and in terms of money values. For example, if in a certain region land is shifted from cereals to potatoes the output per hectare in terms of calories of human food is likely to be increased, but its productivity in terms of money value may be changed up or down according to the relative prices of cereals and potatoes. Again shifting of land from main crop potatoes to early season potatoes or to luxury vegetables may well increase its productivity in money terms, but will almost certainly reduce it in terms of calories. In developing countries with dense and fast-growing populations where food is in short supply, the first need may be to maximize the volume of the total output in terms of calories. 3.1 (b) Productivity of Labour: Whereas, the productivity of land is of primary importance as a determinant of the total level of food and agricultural production, the productivity of labour is mainly important as a determinant of the income of the population engaged in agriculture. The productivity of labour is a somewhat more complex concept than land productivity. It may be simply expressed by the hours of work needed to produce, e.g., a ton of wheat or cotton. But except where mainly monocultural agriculture is practiced such measurement have a limited meaning, and more commonly labour productivity is measured by the total agricultural output per unit of labour.

7 75 Labour input may be expressed as the total number in the labour force or, in order to take into account the intensity of labour, as the number of man-hours worked in agriculture. Similarly, the total agricultural output may be taken as the gross farm output, or it may be taken as the value added by labour and other factors in agriculture, i.e., the value of fertilizers, pesticides, fuel and other inputs from outside the agricultural sector is subtracted from the value of the output in order to determine the net contribution of agricultural sector. The more refined systems of measurement, in particular value added per man-hour, are of importance chiefly in economically advanced countries where it is intended to compare labour productivity in agriculture with that of other occupations, or where it is necessary for social purposes to compare the incomes and productivity of workers in agriculture with those in other occupations. They are of less importance in developing countries where there is commonly an abundance of farm labour, and where farm workers are often seasonally employed or underemployed except at times of peak labour demand, e.g., at harvest. Labour productivity in agriculture has two important aspects. First, it profoundly affects national prosperity, i.e., the national income; secondly, it principally determines the standard of living of the agricultural population9. National prosperity in the economic perspective is largely synonymous with the high output per man-hour. Therefore, if a country intends to increase its prosperity it needs: (a) to encourage technical assistance and improvement to the labour population, which help to increase productivity in the agricultural economy, and (b) to stimulate a continual transfer of labour from low productivity to high 9. P. L. Yates, Food, Land and Manpower in Western Europe, London, 1960, p.149.

8 76 productivity regions. So far as raising the farmer s standard of living is concerned, there are two ways: either he may be paid more than the prevailing regional or world prices for a given amount of work, or the steps can be encountered to raise his output, e.g., productivity from the same resources. Output per man can be improved in the agricultural economy: (i) by giving each farm worker more land and livestock to look after, and (ii) by making each unit of land and livestock capable of yielding a bigger output (c) Productivity of Capital: Productivity measures of capital are particularly complicated to compute and difficult to interpret. This is largely because of both diversity of farms, and the purpose for which capital may be utilized in agricultural production process. It is generally utilized for the purchase of land, for land improvement, land reclamation, drainage, irrigation purposes, livestock purchase, feeds, seeds, fertilizers, agricultural implements and machinery, crops protection chemicals etc., Measurement of agricultural productivity depends upon conceptually consistent measures of aggregate agricultural output and input. The concept of inputs in productivity studies includes the resources committed to agriculture by the farmers. These inputs are subjected to control by the decisions of the farmers under the framework of government s policies. And these inputs may be classified as labour and tangible capital (including intermediate products which are purchased annually from the non-farm sources, such as fertilizer and processed feed and seed). Land, building, machinery, pesticide, livestock and purchased 10. Ibid, P.153.

9 77 production services are tangible capital inputs. Choice of inputs mainly determines the increase in agricultural productivity with due regard to the qualities of inputs in a relative sense and the techniques and skills which are utilized in production process. Stamp while attempting to measure crop productivity per unit area emphasized, that areal differences in productivity are the result partly of natural advantages of soil, and partly of farming efficiency11. Farming efficiency refers to the properties and qualities of various inputs, the manner in which they are combined and utilized in production. In the United States, various hypotheses about the causes of increase in agricultural productivity have been advanced. For instance, Henry12 has mentioned, that it is primarily the result of an unusual abundance of land and natural resources. Loomis and Barton13 suggest, that real cause of increase in productivity has been new knowledge and technical change, and such closely related forces as changing relative prices, increased specialization, increased size of farm operation, changes in institutional structure of education, credit, transportation, processing and the economic activity, etc. 3.2 Approaches to the Measurement of Agricultural Productivity: A Critical Review. THE ASSESSMENT of agricultural productivity has engaged the attention of scholars working in different disciplines like, geography, economics and agricultural sciences for a long time. Many attempts have been made to measure 11. L. D. Stamp, Our Developing World, London 1960, P B. P. Henry, The American Experience, New York, 1947, P R. A. Loomis and G.T. Barton, Productivity of Agriculture in the United States , Technical Bulletin 1238, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C. 1961, p.l.

10 78 and quantify agricultural productivity in India as well as in other countries of the world. Thompson14 (1926) while measuring the relative productivity of British and Danish farming emphasized and expressed it in terms of gross output of crops and livestock. He considered the following seven parameters: (i) the yield per acre of crops, (ii) the livestock per 100 acres, (iii) the gross production or output per 100 acres, (iv) the proportion of arable land, (v) the number of persons employed, (vi) the cost of production expressed in terms of wages and labour costs, rent or interest, and (vii) prices relative profitability and general economic conditions. Ganguli15 (1938) presented a theoretical discussion for computing productivity in agriculture. Firstly, he took into account the area under any crop A in a particular unit area belonging to a certain region. This area is expressed as a proportion of the total cropped area under all the selected crops. Secondly, Ganguli tried to obtain the index number of yield. This is found by dividing the yield per hectare for the entire region as the standard. This yield may be expressed as a percentage and the percentage may be regarded as the index number of yield. Thirdly, the proportion of the area under A and the corresponding index number of yield were multiplied. There are two advantages which are apparent by using this method, i.e., (a) the relative importance of the crop A in that unit of study is assessed as indicated by the proportion of the cropped area which is under A, and (b) the yield of the crop A in comparison to the regional standard. The product 14. R. J. Thompson, the Productivity of British and Danish Farming. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, (Part II) 1926, p B. N. Ganguli, Trends of Agriculture and Population in the Ganges Valley, London. 1938, P.93.

11 79 thus obtained indicates actually an index of the contribution of the crop A to the productivity of the unit considered. Kendall16 (1939) treated it as a mathematical problem and initiated a system of four coefficients: (a) Productivity coefficient, (b) ranking coefficient, (c) money value coefficient and (d) starch equivalent or energy coefficient. Kendall pointed out, that the productivity coefficient and the ranking coefficient are concerned only with the yield per acre, but are not in any way weighted according to the volume of production. He, therefore, evolved a measure of crop productivity by using index number technique. In this technique the yield of different crops should be expressed in terms of some common units. Kendall pointed out, that there are two common units which can be taken note of first money value as expressed in price and second energy as expressed in starch equivalent. In case of money value index there is one major difficulty, that data for certain crops are not available, for example, there are many vegetables and beans which are grown mostly for the consumption on the farms and their price data are not recorded in contrast to cereal crops whose data are adequate. While determining the money value coefficient, another difficulty arises with regard to the prices - for example, the prices prevailing in the area should be adopted, or those prevailing in the region or in the country as a whole, in addition to the local variations in the prices which depend on circumstances like, proximity to the market or the relative nutritive character of the product. Significant differences in prices per ton between the crops affect the final result heavily in favour of the 16. M. G. Kendall, The Geographical Distribution of Crop Productivity in England, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 162,1939.

12 80 higher priced commodity. In this method, the crop production of each unit area is valued by multiplying the volume of production of a particular crop by the price, and then add the results for the selected number of crops together. The total is divided by the total acreage in the unit area under the total selected crops. The result gives for each unit area a figure of money value per acre/hectare under the crops considered. So far as energy coefficient is concerned, an index based on nutritional factor ignores local variations because of the absence of data. Kendall, therefore, suggests starch equivalent as the most suitable unit. While calculating a coefficient based on starch equivalent it should be decided: (a) whether a gross or net digestible energy figure is to be taken (b) whether any allowance is to be made for by products, such as-wheat and barley straws or the green stalks of Maize, Jowar, and Bajra, and (c) whether any account should be taken of the fact that the energy in certain foods has first to be fed to livestock and then wheat and milk is used for human consumption. The basic question that arises in this technique is whether the gross starch equivalent of the various crops should be considered or the net equivalent. Net energy refers to the amount of energy for work and body building whereas, a gross figure includes the energy employed in the digestive process of the consuming animal and similar non-realizable forms. Kendall suggested, that production of energy be preferred as the gross figures. It should be mentioned here, that the money value coefficient does not take into consideration the value of the by-products of the crops but a similar omission of any allowance or the energy of the by-products in the energy coefficient would have a serious affect. It is surmised, that there is nearly as much starch equivalent in the straw produced on a hectare of land as the grain itself. Therefore, it

13 81 becomes necessary to estimate the production by weight of by-products to the main products of wheat, barley, oats, beans, peas, etc. The determination of productivity by the productivity coefficient method involves the use of higher mathematics, and the money value coefficient and starch equivalent or energy coefficient poses a practical difficulty. Therefore, Kendall looked for a coefficient which might lead to similar results in productivity and save a good deal of calculations. The method attempts to arrange in sequence any given number of units growing the same range of crops and then assess their agricultural efficiency*. Kendall took the acre yields of ten leading crops in each of the forty-eight administrative countries of England for four selected years. The places occupied by each country in respect to the selected crops were then averaged, and thus ranking coefficient of agricultural efficiency of each country was obtained. If a country was at the top of every list, it would have a ranking coefficient of one and if it were at the bottom of every list, it would have a ranking coefficient of one and if were at the bottom of every list, it would have a ranking co-efficient equal to the number of countries concerned. Hirsch17 (1943) has suggested, Crop Yield Index as the basis of productivity measurement. It expresses the average of the yields of various crops on a farm or in a locality relative to the yields of the same crops on another farm in a second locality. Zobel (1950) has attempted to determinethe labour productivity. He considered productivity of labour as the ratio of total output to the total man-hours consumed in the production of that output resulting in output * Terms Productivity and Efficiency are used synonymously here. 17. H. G. Hirsch, Crop Yield Index, Journal of Farm Economics, 25, (3) 1943 p S. P. Zobel, On the Measurement of Productivity of Labour, Journal of American Statistical Society, 45, 1950, p.218.

14 82 per man-hour. This has been designed with the equation: where rc=f(p, L), 7t= Productivity of labour, P= Production, and L= Labour utilized. Stamp19 (1952) applied Kendall s ranking coefficient technique on an international level in order to determine agricultural efficiency of a number of countries as well as some major crops. Huntington and Valkenburg20 (1952) considered land productivity on the basis of acre yields of eight crops raised very widely in Europe. They selected average yield per acre of each crop for Europe as a whole, and assumed as an index of 100 for it, and thus calculated the specific yield index of each country. Stamp21 (1958) suggested another method of measuring the agricultural productivity, i.e., to convert the total agricultural production in calories. The caloric intake is a measure of the general health of a person because it determines the amount of heat and energy needed by the human body. The British Medical Association on the basis of exhaustive enquiry, published a table showing a range of desirable caloric intake among adults from 2,100 calories a day for a woman in sedentary occupation to 4,250 calories for a man engaged in active manual work. For children, the desirable intake is calculated as 800 calories a day, for infants under one year and to 3,400 calories for teenage boys22. Taking into 19. L. D. Stamp, The Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency with Special Reference to India, Silver Jubilee Souvenir Volume, Indian Geographical Society, 1952, pp S. V. Valkenburg, and C. C. Held, Europe, New York, 1952, p L. D. Stamp, The Measurement of Land Resources, The Geographical Review, 48, (1) 1958, PP Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Manual of Nutrition, London, 1955.

15 83 consideration the age structure of the population, the range of occupation, the weight and height of the people living under climate conditions of northwestern Europe, the average is 2,460 calories a day or about 9,00,000 calories per year. Stamp called it as a Standard Nutrition Unit. Shafi23 (1960) applied the technique ranking coefficient of Kendall for measuring the agricultural efficiency in Uttar Pradesh taking into account eight food crops grown in each of the forty-eight districts of the state. He applied this method to acre yield figures for the two quinquennial years ending 1952 and Loomis and Barton24 (1961) have measured United States agricultural input and productivity in aggregate. To them, aggregate productivity depends upon conceptually consistent measures of agricultural output and input. The measures of inputs includes all the production factors that depend directly on the decision of farmers. Meiburg and Brandt25 (1962) have surveyed the earlier indices relating to the United States agricultural output, e.g., output estimates of total productivity. They considered eight indices of agricultural production which cover various phases of the period extending between the years 1866 and Mackenzie26 (1962) has measured the efficiency of production in Canadian agriculture by using the coefficient of output relative to input. He mentions, that the concept productivity measurement is difficult to define and even more difficult to quantify. Oommen27 (1962) while working out the trends of productivity in 23. M. Shafi, Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh, Economic Geography, 36(4), 1960 pp R. A. Loomis and G. T. Barton, Productivity of Agriculture in the United States , Technical Bulletin No.1238, USDA, Washington, D.C., 1961, P.l. 25. C. O. Meiburg and K. Brandt, Agricultural Productivity in the United States : , Food Research Institute Studies, 3(2) 1962, p W. Mackenzie, The Impact of Technological Change on the Efficiency of Production in Canadian Agriculture, Canadiam Journal of Agricultural Economics (1), 1962, p M. A. Commen, Agricultural Productivity Trends in Kerala. Agricultural Situation in India, 17(4), 1962 pp

16 84 agriculture of the state of Kerala (India) has measured productivity on the basis of yield per acre. Enyedi28 (1964) while describing geographical types of agriculture in Hungary refers to a formula for determining agricultural productivity. His formula for assessing productivity coefficient would be read thus: Y T Where Yn T Y = total yield of the respective crop in the unit area, Y = total yield of the crops at the national level, T = total cropped area of the unit, and T = total cropped area at the national level. Horring 29 (1964) has suggested, that the concept of productivity is based not only on the single relationship between output and input, but rather on the differences between two or more relationships, i.e., differences in the same agricultural region or sub-region as between successive periods (in time), and between similar agricultural regions in different countries or regions during the same period (in space). It may also be possible to make comparisons between the trends of productivity for different products, between different regions of the national economy or between the agricultural regions and the national economy as a whole. The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, considered the problem and published a series of articles under the broad head Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity30. Among the contributors Chaterji 28. G. Y. Enyedi, Geographical Types of Agriculture, Applied Geography in Hungary, Budapest, 1964, p J. Horring, Concept of Productivity Measurement in Agriculture on a National Scale, OECD, Documentation in Food and Agriculture, 57, Paris, 1964, p Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 19(1), 1964, pp

17 85 and Maitreya31 (1964) have determined the levels of agricultural development and productivity during to in the state of West Bengal, considering only two principle crops, viz., rice among the food crops and jute from the cash crops. They utilized the acre yield figures for this purpose. Dhosdyal32 (1964) has measured variations in agricultural development and productivity by selecting three representative districts from the three regions of the Uttar Pradesh, while assessing the role of credit, intensive crop enterprises, and the influence of irrigation water during Garg (1964) worked out the trends in agricultural development with respect to total cropped area, gross irrigated area and foodgrain production in the two districts of Uttar Pradesh viz., Gorakhpur representing the eastern region and Meerut from the western region and productivity by assessing acreage, production and average yield per acre of three important crops viz., rice, wheat and sugarcane. This study extends from to covering the period between the First and Second Five-year Plans. Gopalkrishnan and Ramakrishna34 (1964) have studied in Andhra Pradesh (India) (1) to measure the degree of variations with respect to (a) agricultural output per acre (Rs.), (b) Output per head of agricultural population (Rs.), and (2) to account the causes of variations in each of the twenty districts of the state during The variables relating to the level of output per acre are selected as follows: (i) normal level of rainfall, 31. A. Chaterji and P. Maitreya, Some Aspects of Regional Variations in Agricultural Productivity and Development in West Bengal, ibid., pp S. P. Dhondyal, Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, ibid., pp J. S. Garg, Variation Studies in the Agricultural Development and Productivity in Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, ibid., pp M.D. Gopalkrishnan, and P. T. Ramakrishna, Regional Variations in Agricultural Productivity in Andhra Pradesh, ibid., pp

18 86 (ii) percentage of current and old fallows, (iii) percentage of area under irrigation, (iv) percentage of literacy, (v) percentage of population on agriculture, (vi) intensity of cropping, (vii) percentage of gross value other than food grains and fodder, (viii) the percentage of area under all crops excluding fodder and foodgrains, (ix) density of agricultural population per acre, and (x) percentage of total area under commercial crops including rice, Sanchety35 (1964) has examined the productivity of principal cereals in the dry areas of the Rajasthan state by considering the averages of last two trienniums to and to respectively, and the changes occurring therein. He accounted average yield per acre as the basis of productivity assessment. Sapre and Deshpande36 (1964) have attempted to refine further the Kendalls ranking coefficient method. For this they used weighted average of ranks instead of the simple averaged ranks. Thus, it incorporates the proportion of the crop (area) to the total area of the district. In order to assess the weighted ranks, the ranking position of a crop is multiplied by the magnitude of it to the total cropped area. For example, an enumeration unit A has rank 5 on the basis of yield for Wheat, and Wheat occupies 33 percent of area to the total cropped land; Jowar ranks 3 and occupies 16 percent of the area; rice ranks 4, and occupies 30 percent of the total cropped land. Thus, the weighted average of ranks for different crops would be : (5x33)+(3xl6)+(4x30)=333 divided by the sum of the weights as 333/79=4.21. Kendall s ranking coefficient would be worked out as 35. D. C. Sanchety, Productivity of Principal Cereals in Dry Areas of Rajasthan, ibid., pp S. G. Sapre and V. D. Deshpande, Inter-district Variations in Agricultural Efficiency in Maharastra State, P. 234.

19 87 follows: 5+3+4=12 divided by the number of crops taken into consideration as: 12/3=4. The Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics organized a symposium on the topic, Measurement of Agricultural Productivity at the 17th annual conference of the society held at Jaipur in The research papers contributed by different scholars appeared in the Society s journal, viz., Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, in the succeeding issue of Sarma37 (1965) while defining the concept of agricultural productivity has suggested various parameters on which it can be measured. According to him, productivity can be considered in relation to land, labour and capital. It can also be considered in terms of overall resources employed in agriculture. In case of commodities like foodgrains, fruits and vegetables, sugarcane, and edible seeds, he suggests that the output of these commodities be converted into calories. While considering the other non-food crops such as cotton and other fibres the only common measure being the value which involves the pricing of different products. For evaluating value of production, farm harvest or wholesale prices have the definite significance. He also emphasized agricultural workforce as the basis of productivity measurement, e.g., the total number of labourers employed (in order to account the intensity of labour) or the number of man-hours worked in JJI agriculture per unit of area. Agricultural productivity according to Sarma, can also be measured with respect to all resources committed to agriculture including all the inputs, like land, 37. J. S. Sarma, Measurement of Agricultural Productivity-Concepts, Definitions, etc., Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics 27(2), 1965, pp Ibid., p.254.

20 88 labour, building, machinery and fertilizers, etc. These inputs should be aggregated and compared with the gross output of the entire region39. He further suggests, that productivity studies are more useful when they are made over a period of time. Wherever comparable data are available, different techniques for analyses in different time series can be employed. Productivity comparisons might also be made for different regions or for different crops40. Khusro41 (1965) has linked assessment of productivity with the output per unit of a single input and output per unit of cost of all inputs in the agricultural production. Saran42 (1965) has applied Cobb-Douglas Production Function approach for the measurement of productivity. The common purpose of this function is to express input/output relationship between several inputs and one output in the agricultural systems. The function takes the following form: Y = Ax,b x2c x3d X4e... X y Where X1( X2, X3) X^... X denote various inputs, like land, labour capital assets and other working expenses. The values of b, c, d,... y represent elasticities of the respective inputs. Tambad43 (1965 and 1970) has adopted Crop Yield Index as the basis for measuring agricultural productivity. He explains, that the purpose of this techniques is to express the average yield of various crops on a farm or in a region relative to the yield of same crops on an another farm or in a second region. It can be expressed in the equation form as: 39. Ibid., p Ibid., p A. M. Khusro, Measurement of Productivity at macro and Micro Level, ibid., p R. Saran, Production Function Approach to the measurement of Productivity in Agriculture, ibid,, p S. B. Tambad, Spatial and Temporal Variations in Agricultural Productivity in Mysore, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20,1965, p.41. S. B. Tambad and K. V. Patel, Crop Yield Index as a Measure of Productivity, Economic and Political Weekly, 5(25), 1970, pp

21 89 Crop Yield Index = n I -^-A, i=l Y; 10 I A, i 1 Where i= 1,2, 3,... n are the number of crops considered in an unit area or year, Yf= is the yield per acre of crop i, in a farm area or year. Ar is the weightage of crop i, denoted by the area under the crop as a percentage of total cropped, and Yfo= is the average yield per acre of crop i, at the group of farms or entire region or the base year. Shaft44 (1965) has assessed the productivity on the basis of labour population engaged in agriculture. According to him, it can be computed by dividing the gross production in any unit area by the number of man-hours or less precisely by the numbers employed in agriculture. In order to assess the productivity on the basis of population engaged in agriculture it can either be obtained by dividing the total production with the number of workers, or a reverse index be applied where the total number of workers per unit of production is assessed45. Agarwal46 (1965), has suggested, Factorial Approach, while measuring agricultural efficiency in Bastar district of Madhya Pradesh. In this approach a number of human controlled factors relating to agricultural production as: crop superiority, crop commercialization, crop security, land use intensity and power input have been selected, excluding the environmental factors. 44. M. Shaft, Approaches to the Measurement of the Agricultural Efficiency, Unpublished, Proceedings of the Summer School in Geography held at Naini Tal, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 1965 p Ibid., p P. C. Agarwal., Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency in Bastar District: A. Factorial Approach, ibid.

22 90 Buck47 (1937) assessed the agricultural progress in China by adopting the approach of Grain Equivalent. For this purpose he converted all the agricultural products into kilograms of grain equivalent in order to select as a unit of measure a kilogram, and whatever kind of grain was predominant in the region. A modification in this method was attempted by Clark and Haswell48 (1967) by expressing the output in terms of kilograms of Wheat Equivalent per head of population. Dovring49 (1967) has measured the productivity of labour in the United States agriculture in aggregate since 1919 to 1954 as a whole, as well as commodity-wise. Bhatia50 (1967) while assessing the changes and trends in agricultural efficiency sin Uttar Pradesh during adopted Ganguli s methods of productivity measurement51 and has devised an equation which would be read thus: Where, Yc (i)lya = Yr and lya yc yr = is the yield index of crop a, = is the average acre yield of yield of crop a in the component unit, and = is the average acre yield of crop a in the entire study area. Iya- Ca + Ij,/,. Cb + (ii) Ef ca + ch + C I C 47. J. L. Buck, Land utilization in China, I, Nanking C. Clark and M. Haswell, The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture, London, 1967, pp F. Dovring, Productivity of Labour in Agricultural Production, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No.726, College of Agriculture, Urban, University of Illinois, Illinois, S. S. Bhatia, Spatial Variations Changes and Trends in Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh, , Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 22(1) 1967, pp B. N. Ganguli, op cit., p. 93.

23 91 Where, Ei = is the agricultural efficiency index, Iy*. etc. = are the indices of various crops, and C Cb, etc, = represent the proportion of cropland devoted to different crops. Shafi52 (1967 and 1969) applied Stamp s Standard Nutrition Unit technique for measuring the efficiency of agriculture in India. He has considered the district as the areal unit, and has selected all the food crops grown in India. Noort53 (1967) considered net total productivity (being the relationship between the net product and factor input) as a method for the measurement of field productivity and also to assess comparisons in time or in space. The purpose of this measure is to account changes in labour and capital inputs in agriculture. Sinha54 (1968) has adopted a standard deviation formula to determine agricultural efficiency in India. For this purpose he selected all the twenty-five major crops grown in the country which were grouped into cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cash crops and specific yields per hectare of cereals, pulses and oilseeds were taken. And in case of money crops, their monetary values were calculated (in Rs.) per hectare by incorporating wholesale market prices. Finally, the standard scores were computed and to give them weightage, these values were multiplied by the acreage figures, i.e., the area of cultivation under the crops. Shafi55 (1970) attempted to compute the index of productivity coefficient 52. M. Shafi, Food Production Efficiency and Nutrition in India, The Geographer,14,1967 PP Idem, Can India support Five Times Her Population? Science Today 3,1969, pp P. C. Van den Noort, Agricultural Productivity in Western Europe, Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 15(2), 1967, p B. N. Sinha, Agricultural Efficiency in India, The Geographer, Special Number, XXI, IGC, 15, 1968, pp M. Shafi Measurement of Food Crop Productivity in India, Presidential Address, Indian Council of Geographers, Indian Science Congress, 1970.

24 92 following the formula initiated by Enyedi56 for each district of India with regard to twelve food crops. Hayami and Ruttan (1970) accounted agricultural labour productivity differences in developed countries (DC s) and of less developed countries (LDC s) for three different periods, e.g., 1955 ( averages), 1960 ( averages) and 1965 ( averages) by using Cobb-Douglas Production Function. They incorporated the independent variables, like land, labour, livestock, fertilizers, machinery, education and technical manpower. Shafi58 (1972) while commenting on the formula presented by Enyedi in determining productivity index of an area with reference to the national scale pointed out that there are certain cases where the results obtained by the formula are influenced by the magnitude of the area under a particular crop when the yield of the district is either the same or is less than the national yield. For example, when the yield of the district is the same as the national yield even then the district, by the computation of the formula, has a higher productivity coefficient than that of the national scale. Example: Yield of wheat in the district (B) National yield of wheat Area of the district under wheat Area under wheat at the national level Total crop area of the district Total crop area at National level. = 15 qnt./ha. = 15 qnt./ha. = 15,000 ha. = 10,00,000 ha. = 50,000 ha. = 5.7 million ha. 56. G. Y. Enyedi, op. cit., p Y. Hayami, and V. W. Ruttan, Agricultural Productivity Differences Among Countries, The American Economic Review, 60 (5) 1970, PP M. Shafi Measurement of Agricultural Productivity of the Great Indian plains. The Geographer, 19, 1972, pp. 7-9.

25 93 Applying the formula.l _L Y* T = 2,25,000 57,00,000 = ,00,000 50,000 Productivity coefficient = = +71 Percent. The example shows that the district (B) although having the same yield of wheat as the national yield is shown to be 71 percent more productive which is hardly tenable Similarly, there may be a case when the district yield is less than the national yield, but the area under that particular crop whose productivity coefficient is to be determined is more than in the instance cited by Enyedi. In this case too, although the district yield is less, its productivity index would be higher than the national level. Example: Yield of wheat in the district (C) Yield of wheat at the national level Area of wheat in the district Area of wheat at the national level = 12 qnt./ha. = 15 qnt./ha. = 20,000 ha. = 10,00,000 ha. Y = 2,40,000 qnt. Y = 1,50,00,000 qnt. T = 50,000 ha. T =5.7 million ha. According to the formula the result of the productivity index of the district (C) would be as follows: 2,40,000 l,50,00,00u 57,00,000 50,000 = Productivity Coefficient = =82 percent.

26 94 It will be seen that although the productivity of the district with regard to wheat is less than that of the national level, the formula shows that the district is 82 percent more productive than the national level. Taking the same example which Enyedi has quoted, if only the yield of wheat per hectare is decreased (the yield of wheat in the district per hectare is taken to be less than the figure cited), and other things remain equal, the productivity coefficient of the district again would be higher than the national level. Example: Yield of wheat in the district Yield of wheat at the National level Area under wheat in the district Area under wheat at the national level Total crop area of the district Total crop area at National level. 12 qnt./ha. 15 qnt./ha ha. 10,00,000 ha ha. 5.7 million ha. According to the formula the productivity coefficient of the district with respect to Wheat = 1,80,000.57,00,000 = ,50,00,000 50,000 Productivity Coefficient = = + 37 Percent. It will be seen from the above measurements that in a particular district although the yield per hectare of a crop may be equal to the national level or even less than the national level, the productivity index with respect to that crop is higher than the national level.

27 95 The writer made an attempt to modify the formula wherein the productivity coefficient of a particular crop may be in conformity with higher or lower yield per hectare of that crop in the district relative to the national level. In the modified formula the summation of the total yield of all the crops in the district is divided by the total area under the crop considered in the district and the position thus obtained is examined in relation to the total yield of all the crops considered at the national level divided by the total area under those crops. The formula would be read thus: t 1 yv y m i Y n 1 w t t T T T "V 4 4 1*. n n n EY : EY t T or Where yw yr etc., = total yield of the respective crop in the district, Ywi Yr etc., = total yield of the respective crop in the district level, t T = area planted under the crop in the district, and = area planted under the crop at the national level. Singh59 (1972) has evolved a new technique for the measurement of agricultural efficiency, which consists of the measurement of carrying capacity per unit area in terms of population in relation to output per unit area. The method would be read in the equation form as: C (i) Cp = J. Singh, A New Technique for Measuring Agricultural Efficiencies in Haryana, India, ibid., pp

28 96 Where Cp = is the carrying capacity. C0 = is the caloric output, and S = is the standard nutrition for ingestion in calories per person/annum. C (ii) I,e =----- x 100. Where, Ia* Cpe = is the index number of agricultural efficiency. = is the carrying capacity in terms of population, in the component enumeration unit and Cp, = is the carrying capacity in the entire region. The Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics in its 30th Annual Conference held at Bhubaneswar (Orissa) India, discussed some aspects on agricultural productivity in the Indian context60. Raheja, et a/.61 (1977) have measured the impact of high-yielding varieties based on data collected under the scheme, Sample Surveys for Assessment of High-Yielding Varieties Programme, during and regional variations in productivity on the basis of yield per hectare in India. Singh etal.62 (1977) have accounted the level of increase in the yield of different crops during three decennial years, i.e., , and in each state of India, considering the relationship between the output of foodgrains and related inputs like, the application of fertilizer, proportion of area sown more than once, and gross irrigated area. 60. Symposium on Regional Imbalance and Economic Development with Special Reference to Agriculture, Journal of Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 29(1), 1977, pp S. Raheja, et al., Factors Contributing to Regional Variations in Productivity and Adoption of High- Yielding Varieties of Major Cereals in India, ibid., pp D. Singh, et al., Crop Productivity Variation in India, op.cit., pp

29 97 Nangia et al.63 (1977) conducted a field study in the village Khandewala, of Haryana state. The study takes into account the productivity levels at different fields of the village in terms of money value during and a number of factors enumerated in three broad categories, viz., environmental, technological and institutional which hold responsibilities for the productivity variations. Bhalla64 (1978) has considered output per persons on constant average price for measuring productivity of labour in India agriculture in order to account for nineteen crops during the trienniums and for each district of the country (India). Singh65 (1979) devised a method of presenting a two- dimensional picture of agricultural productivity comprising two components, viz., intensity and spread considering three variables (i) yield, (ii) grain equivalent, and (iii) cropping system in the districts of Andhra Pradesh state. Accordingly, a relative share of intensity and spread for each micro unit (district) has been computed to the macro unit (state) separately for the above three variables with the help of equations that have been derived * S. Nangia, et al., Variations in Field Productivity - A Case Study of Khandewala, Haryana, Occasional Papers No.7 (Mimeo) Centre, for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, G. S. Bhalla, Spatial Patterns of Agricultural Labour Productivity, Yojana 22(3) 1978, pp V. R. Singh, A Method for Analysing Agricultural Productivity, Agriculture and Food Supply in Developing Countries (ed., J. T. Coppock) Published for the Commission on World Food Problems Agricultural Productivity of the IGU, Department of Geography, University of Edinburgh, 1979, pp