II. Land Tenure Relationships in the Context of the Green
Revolution
Agrarian reforms discussed so far had, as one of their goals,
the increase of agricultural production. As most reforms (Japan
and Taiwan are exemptions) are more or less mere reallocations
of control over land among people, without changing the traditional
form of agriculture, the increase in total amount produced
was meagre. During recent years, in many countries there has
been a technological change in agriculture which has considerably
influenced the level of production. This change, which is
usually termed the "Green Revolution", was made
possible by the development of new seed varieties with a high
yielding potential and their application in a bundle together
with other complementary inputs, such as fertilizers, water,
etc.
The effect of these inputs on production is considerable.
Under suitable conditions, the yield of wheat and rice is
two or three times as high as before. In view of such differences
in yield and supported further by incentive prices for the
products, it is no wonder that the innovations were adopted
rather quickly and their application was limited more by the
availability of the new seeds and other supplies than by the
willingness of the farmers to apply it. Double or treble yields
explain the prosperity which is so obvious to the visitor
to the centres of the Green Revolution.
So far, the Green Revolution has taken place without institutional
changes in agriculture, but is the result solely of the application
of the input package by the agriculturists. Because of this
spontaneous development some circles have come to the conclusion
that development of Asian agriculture is possible without
institutional changes. Contrary to this opinion, it is the
belief of the author that the Green Revolution makes a change
of land tenure and other rural institutions, including the
creation of new ones, still more pressing.
If one analyzes the Green Revolution somewhat deeper, one
comes across numerous bottlenecks caused by the existing agrarian
structure and insufficient institutional arrangements.
The experience, so far, shows an extremely uneven distribution
of the fruits of the Green Revolution among the different
classes of the rural population and this leads to a rapid
and severe widening of the existing disparities.
The adoption of innovations takes place usually more rapidly
on large holdings than among small peasants. This holds true
as well for the Green Revolution. The owners of large and
medium-sized holdings soon realized the possibilities of the
new technology, had the necessary capital or access to capital
and succeeded in obtaining seeds even at the time when there
was still a shortage.
When they were convinced of the profitability of agriculture
under modern technology, these "progressive farmers",
as they are sometimes called, changed their approach towards
agriculture. They began to pursue agriculture as a business
rather than as a way of life. Many of them used the increase
in income to invest in more tube-wells in order to increase
further their output and income by making more water available.
Often, as a next step, a tractor was purchased with the aid
of which cultivation of the soil was improved and double cropping
possible. The purchase of a thresher and other machinery soon
followed in a process which led to considerable increase in
agricultural production. It was only logical that these progressive
farmers should begin to reappraise their labour organization
and, from their standpoint of capitalistic agriculture, reach
the conclusion that under the changed conditions, personal
cultivation with labourers is more profitable than cultivation
by sharecroppers. With the new level of output, a sharecropper
receiving 50 per cent of the yield was an expensive worker.
Besides, changes in the traditional crop-sharing system which
were made necessary by the introduction of tractors and tube-wells,
often proved difficult so that many landowners evicted their
tenants and offered to re-employ them as wage labourers. Tenants
sometimes tried to resist and organized strikes during harvest
time; but such incidences increased the landowner's desire
to become independent of labour problems by employing combines,
for example.
The result of this process is an increase in prosperity
for the large and middle farmers in the irrigated areas, i.
e. the rural upper and upper middle class. They have been
able to use the possibilities offered by the Green Revolution
and did so in a rather rapid and penetrating way. The participation
of small farmers in the Green Revolution is much less. In
principle, the new seed is available to everyone and is not
subject to economies of scale. But in practice, the small
holders suffer from lack of information, lack of managerial
ability, lack of capital and access to credit and lack of
ability to take risks. If their fields, as is often the case,
are not consolidated, it is impossible to construct a tube-well,
even if the capital is available.
Because of these factors, participation of small farmers
in the Green Revolution is much more limited. In addition,
the taste of the new rice varieties and the suitability of
the wheat varieties for chapattis did not appeal to the peasants.
This is an important consideration for small peasants who
use most of their output for home consumption. It is obvious
that these arguments hold even more true for tenants. The
fact that sharecroppers have been evicted in the course of
the Green Revolution has been mentioned already.
The majority of the agricultural labourers reaped little benefit
from the Green Revolution. Certainly the technological changes
involved an increase in labour requirements — application
of fertilizers, double cropping, intensification of irrigation
and other innovations resulted in more work hours per cultivated
area. Even tractors often do not lead to reduction of work
requirements but to an increase in workload because of the
intensification of farming which is only possible with mechanical
power. In addition, much secondary employment has been created
by the Green Revolution in such fields as expanded rural trade
and transport, the construction of wells and houses, the construction
and repair of machinery, etc.
But its impact on different groups of rural labour varies
and is generally not very favourable. There are a small number
of former labourers and tenants who are now employed as specialists
for tractor operation, tube-well operation, etc. and have
a better paid and more secure job than before. However, in
view of the ample supply of labour in most Asian countries,
the increase in labour demand has resulted in a very limited
increase in wages for the majority of labourers, often not
exceeding the rate of inflation.
At the same time, the large group of casual labourers have
actually been adversely affected. Previously they were in
high demand during the short harvest time and received, during
the harvest period, three times the rate of their normal wages,
amounting up to 50 per cent of their annual income. Because
of the long periods of unemployment over the rest of the year,
this income earned during harvest time constituted the basis
of their annual livelihood. If by mechanization the peak of
labour requirement is reduced during harvest time, the seasonal
wage rate will also be lower. In conclusion, it may be stated
that the disparities in income in rural areas have increased
in the course of the Green Revolution. In general, the upper
classes who were already in a favourable position before,
have improved their economic condition considerably. The underprivileged
majority have gained little or nothing from the agricultural
revolution.
If this process continues in the areas which are affected
by the Green Revolution, we can expect the development of
a dualistic agriculture: On the one side, the progressive
sector, consisting of larger holdings with educated farmers
using modern farm management, having access to capital and
inputs, earning high incomes and achieving high yields which
make further investment and still higher incomes possible;
and, on the other, the subsistence sector consisting of small
holdings and untrained peasants lacking capital and other
resources, following traditional agricultural techniques and
having lower yields and smaller incomes.
Both sectors would develop in the form of spirals in opposite
directions and augment the contrast between each other. The
existing maldistribution of income in rural areas would be
intensified and the meagre level of living of the lower classes
remains unchanged.
Such widening disparities in income and standards of farming
as a consequence of the Green Revolution can already be observed
in the different regions of the countries. The precondition
for participation in technological advancement is availability
of irrigation. By definition areas depending on rainfall cannot
participate in the Green Revolution. Even in irrigated areas,
application of high yielding varieties is often difficult,
especially in the case of rice. The new varieties are very
demanding as far as quality of irrigation is concerned: they
are adversely affected by too little as well as by too much
water. What is needed is controlled irrigation, while most
existing irrigation systems in Asia are designed to provide
a constant flow of water from the upper to the lower fields,
whereby the quantity of water depends on the amount of rainfall
in the higher areas. Under these circumstances, the improvement
of the existing irrigation facilities is an urgent necessity
since controlled irrigation is a precondition for successful
participation in the Green Revolution.
What has been said so far about growing disparities holds
true for regional development as well as for the different
classes of population: the already well-off parts of the country
becoming still richer while little or no change takes place
in the poor and depressed areas.
The widening disparities and increasing economic power of
the progressive farmers are by-products of a process which,
for the first time in many years, brought a considerable increase
in agricultural production and put an end to continuous shortage
in staple food. In this respect, the progressive farmers have
done a great service to their countries by following the advice
of their governments and by increasing their efforts to raise
agricultural production. As mentioned above, high returns,
favourable prices and subsidies for inputs made it easy for
them to adopt the new technology. An improvement of the food
situation was associated with considerable personal gains
for the farmers who participated in the Green Revolution.
This increase in the economic power of the progressive farmers
caused an important development. In order to retain the advantages
of their relative affluence, they increasingly used their
economic power to attain political power. They are members
of decision-making bodies, from district councils to parliament
or influence members of these bodies, and succeeded, in many
cases, in retaining their profit instead of transferring part
of it to the public. Undoubtedly, part of the gains are due
to increased efforts, to risks taken and to investments made
by these farmers, and the proceeds of these activities should
be retained by them. But part of their increased income is
the result of public investment in irrigation systems, electricity,
fertilizer plants, experimental stations, extension service,
subsidized credit, etc. and at least this part should go back
to the public for reinvestment. So far, the political power
of progressive farmers has prevented measures, such as higher
taxation, large-scale programmes to improve the situation
of small farmers and tenants, etc., to equalize the situation
between rich and poor farmers.
Until now, progressive farmers have tended generally speaking
to reinvest their profits in agriculture in the form of land,
tube-wells and machinery, i. e. in the agricultural production,
and increase in consumption is limited. But not all forms
of private investment are at the same time beneficial to the
public or can be justified by over-all development considerations.
The process of the Green Revolution has met with a number
of bottlenecks, which seem to increase further as the Green
Revolution spreads to less suitable regions and smaller farms.
Such bottlenecks have occurred especially in the rural service
structure and the institutions which serve the small farmers.
The old institutions which sufficed for the needs of a traditional
agriculture are unable to cope with the requirements of technologically
dynamic agriculture. The sudden increase in the volume of
production marketed requires a corresponding organizational
change in rural trade, often a change from a trader with a
donkey to a businessman with trucks. The same is true for
rural transport. This change, which concerns private trade,
co-operatives and public enterprises alike, involves a change
from low risk to high risk enterprise, without a simultaneous
increase in the trader's management abilities. Moreover, in
the case of input trade, in many regions there is no tradition
since the old traditional agriculture hardly used inputs from
the market. In fact, after the introduction of new technology
in many regions, the level of agro-techniques is higher than
that of agro-business, i. e. the trade and business side of
rural development has not yet caught up with the technological
advancements in agriculture. The lack of institutional prerequisites
is responsible for other bottlenecks in the Green Revolution.
Modern controlled irrigation, successful measures of plant
protection as well as supply and marketing require the farmer's
co-operation and joint action for which the necessary institutions
have to be created. In the course of time, market-oriented
agriculture will come into competition with other sectors
of the economy for prices, subsidies, etc. Agriculture will
need institutions to formulate and present its point of view
and these do not exist so far.
Finally, the development of capitalistic agriculture needs
a counterbalance to safeguard the interests of labourers and
tenants, in the same way as capitalistic industry needs labour
unions. Without such counter-checks, the inherent forces of
capitalism will lead to rapid rate of development of a small
progressive sector in agriculture, without the rest of the
population having a share in it. It is an open question how
such a representation of agricultural labourers and tenants
can be organized in view of the lack of training and leadership.
An attempt to evaluate the land tenure and agrarian structure
in the context of changes brought about by the Green Revolution
results in highlighting positive as well as negative effects.
Tremendous increases in production have resulted in an improvement
in the food situation in several countries, an achievement
which cannot be rated high enough. In addition, the Green
Revolution has put an end to the stagnation in agriculture
and started a development which had been repeatedly attempted,
by numerous previous schemes, but without success. The high
output and returns have made agriculture a profitable business,
making agriculture interesting for many people as a field
for investment. Farmers who have participated in the development
process have increased their income considerably. This prosperity
in the regions of the Green Revolution has caused secondary
increases of income for agrobusiness, construction and agricultural
labour as well.
This favourable record should not, however, be allowed to
conceal a number of other consequences which are less favourable:
it is an indisputable fact that mainly the rural upper class
has benefited from the Green Revolution. They were able to
make use of the possibilities offered, so that the rich became
richer. Small farmers and tenants have hardly had a share
in the increased prosperity, sometimes even losing their status
and being evicted. Similarly the majority of rural labourers
have experienced only a very limited increase in income. In
addition, the Green Revolution is limited to the irrigated
areas, thus widening the difference between already prosperous
regions and regions dependent on rainfall for their water
supply.
Emphasis on private enterprise in the development of capitalistic
agriculture causes a dualism in agriculture which might have
serious social and political consequences. The lack of suitable
institutions of different kinds not only fails to support
the smaller farmers and labourers but hinders even the operation
of progressive farmers.
With respect to the defects in the agrarian structure (as
listed at the end of Chapter I) the Green Revolution has not
only failed to reduce them, but even intensified these defects:
- maldistribution of ownership has now an even stronger
impact than before since it enables the larger landowners
to further increase their profits;
- the rural power structure has become even more rigid
as progressive
farmers with their increased economic power have gained
political power;
- the belief that economic power in rural areas is based
on the control of
resources and is important for determining political power
has been con
firmed;
- distribution of income and wealth has become even more
uneven than
before;
- insufficient supporting services have made participation
of smaller farmers impossible so that owners of small holdings
and tenants have hardly
participated in the Revolution and are as poor as before;
- rural labourers in general have experienced only a limited
increase in
their wages.
It may be said that the Green Revolution, with all its benefits,
has done little to solve the problems of land tenure and agrarian
structure, but often made them more serious and more obvious
to the rural population.
|
