Tractorization in India : Dispelling some myths

Ashok Maggu
The last two decades have witnessed rapid technological changes in Indian agriculture ranging from new ways of intensive cultivation, use of high yielding variety (HYV) seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, and improved water availability. In this milieu the importance of tractorization cannot be ignored. Yet debate on farm mechanization keeps recurring. While lot of research in . this field indicated that tractorization and farm mechanization have to accompany the other changes in agricultural technology, critics worry about the supposedly undesirable consequences of such change. Turnham(22) and Little (11) have estimated that the eighties may see at least 25 per cent more people requiring employment in the less developed countries as compared to the only 10 per cent in developed nations. To absorb this additional labour force, the industrial growth rate will have to be at least twice that of the sixties. The available evidence also indicate that the ratio of labour to'capital employed in the secondary industries of under developed countries is as low or almost as low as it is in the labour scarce economies (11). Farm mechanization is thus feared to be essentially labour saving. Myrdal (12), Lipton (10), a nd Kao (7) have, however, questioned this assumption. They argue that a large part of the apparent underemployment in agriculture does not represent surplus of labour, but rather its inability to undertake sustained work for long periods. Consequently, farm mechanization may help in more and better utilization of labour. Background Technological changes in agriculture have been classed into two broad categories. 1. Land augmenting technological change; and 2. modernization of agriculture through farm mefchanization. The former are those which increase the productivity of land i.e., the use of, HYV seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, etc. These are precondi-

The pa per challenges the conventional belief that tractorization in developing societies with surplus agricultural labour would lead to greater unemployment. Based on a study of the post 1960 demand for tractors in India, and an interview survey of about 900 farmers, opinion leaders, and officials of tractor manufacturers, the author concludes that-tractorization leads to replacement of bullock power, not labour power, and that tractorization is essential for bringing to fruition productivity increasing innovations, such as the use of high yield variety seeds. The author finds that there is a gap Between the kinds of tractors produced in the country and those desired by farmers. Neither the type nor size of the holding is an inhibitor of tractor use though socio-cultural reasons may be. The author is on the faculty of the Xavier Labour Relations Institute, Jamshedpur.

Vikalpa, Vol. 7, No. 1, January-March, 1982

45

tions for farm mechanization and introduction of mechanical power inputs (21). A review of the literature suggests the following two hypotheses. 1. Land augmenting technological changes lead to an increased input of farm labour. "2. Selective mechanization can help in bringing about a more efficient use of farm labour and it does not lead to reduction in the demand for labour. Shivamaggi (18) concludes, based-on data from 7 Indian states, that on an average, farms using HYV seeds employ 40 per cent more labour than those using local varieties. Sisodia (19) draws a similar conclusion from his study of Indore district. Irrespective of the size of the farm this conclusion is valid as shbwn by Tripathy and Samal (21) from a study.of Sambalpur district of Orissa. Many studies of other less developed countries also substantiate this finding. For instance, Shah (17) observed on the basis of data collected for some regions in Philippines, that farmers who adopt land augmenting innovations use 20 per cent more labour input than others in the same region. The evidence cited above clearly indicates that the use of HYV seeds results in 20 to 50 per cent increase in the demand for labour. Moreover, the demand for hired labour shows substantial increase with the use of HYV seeds (20). While these studies show the impact of land augmenting innovations on labour input, there are other studies which substantiate the second hypothesis, i.e., mechanization accompanied by these innovations can lead to increase in output per man as well as in labour utilization. The possibilities of selective mechanization and the need for labour saving tech nology due to increased seasonal labour requirements, resulting from land augmenting technological changes, have been examined for Punjab by Billings and Singh (2). To quote, between 1965 and 1969, "the acreage under high yielding varieties has risen sharply in several districts, exceeding plan targets. Wheat yields specially have risen, causing farm labour to be much in demand during the rabi harvest at a time when the rural labour force as a whole seems to be on the decline. As a result, average daily farm

wages have risen nearly by 200 per cent since 1964. Farmers have responded to labour shortages and costs by substituting a more capital intensive technology for critical activities." The study forecasts that in Punjab, the proportion of wheat crop mechanically threshed would be 100 per cent by 1979 and the percentage of area under tractorization would rise from 3 per cent in 1969 to 20 per cent by 1984. On the basis of the observed monthly demand and supply of labour, the study reports that "with the conventional farm technology and the present acreage under HYV, the demand for human energy (in October) is 95 million mandays whereas only 83 million are available. By the end of the study period( 1983) with no other changes in technology, demand in October would rise to 120 million mandays while the supply would increase to only 92 million. Were the full group of technological changes operational, the demand would decline to 93 million mandays in the same month." While the claim that the wheat crop mechanically threshed would be 100 per cent may not have come true, it is obvious from the migration of seasonal labour from other states into Punjab that there is a wide demand-supply gap in labour. In regions where large scale adoption of land augmenting technological change has taken place, the absence of farm mechanization may disrupt production. A second example relates to a study of a similar region, and supports the observations of Billings and Singh. Lawrence (9) examines the impact of mechanization in West Pakistan. The study reveals that if double cropping (cottonwheat) is to be carried out, the threshing and winnowing of wheat and the sowing of cotton has to be completed within 45 days. This is a very critical period. Lawrence estimates that if these activities were carried out with the help of mechanical equipment they could be accomplished within 25 days. Even allowing for a "down time" these could be accomplished in 30 days, well within the 45 days limit. On the other hand, with bullock and traditional implements, these operations would require 120 mandays of labour. If for a 5 acre farm the farmer and his family provide 45 mandays, there would be as field tests show, an additional requirement of 75
Vikalpa'

46

mandays. This would mean 5 to 6 extra workers for about two weeks. Thus, changes in farm technology like double cropping which are inevitable with the use of HYV, result in shorter critical input periods, and if these changes have occurred on a wide scale in any region, the mechanization of such activities is not only desirable but inevitable. Inukai's (5) study of rice production in Thailand also supports the hypothesis. The pattern of labour utilization in a rice producing region in Thailand shows that under the traditional methods of rice production there is a considerable shortage of farm labour during peak seasons. These conclusions are obtained from a sample survey of 53 households of rice cultivators. From 17th June to 15th July and 3rd December to 30th December, the labour shortages are 30 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. The study observed a time constraint on land preparation for rice because of the onset of the monsoon. With traditional cultivation methods, preparation of land is highly labour intensive, resulting in labour shortages. However, if this could Be done by machines instead of by animal labour, then the labour constraint would be considerably eased. The study concludes that selective mechanization cuts off the peak of labour demand and a contemporaneous change in farming methods increases demand in the troughs. The foregoing analysis indicates the patterns in the intera-ction between technological changes and utilization of farm labour. It has , been observed that due to large scale adoption of HYV and other land augmenting changes the labour input in agriculture increases from 20 to 50 per cent. The requirements being seasonal, the criticality of some of the activities can act as a constraint on the realization of the benefits of such innovations. Thus, farm mechanization is not only desirable but is a necessary condition for bringing about a radical change in agricultural output. However, mechanization being intrinsically labour saving, its adoption should be selective as in Japan. The choice of technology for mechanization must take into account the fact that the mechanical input has to be on a rela-

tively smaller scale in underdeveloped countries as compared to the develope'd countries. The emphasis, therefore, should be on smaller tractors (as against combine harvestersand high HP tractors) (12). Focus of the study Working on this background, this paper attempts to examine the need for the introduction of mechanical power inputs in Indian agriculture; the pattern of demand for tractors in India; and the implications of the choice of tractor, technology on product attributes and the Indian agriculture. To do this, the following have been studied: 1. Analysis of the demand for tactors in India. 2. Examination of the attributes of tractors desired by the farmers in India who have adopted land augmenting technological changes. 3. Consequences of the non-availability of desired tractors on land use. 4. Socio-cultural barriers to adoption of this technology. In order to analyse the various aspects of tractorization, secondary and primary data have been used. The former have been used to analyse tractor demand in India. For the analysis of purchases and tractor use behaviour of farmers, data were collected through interviews in 6 s'tatesPunjab, Haryana, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Physical, cluturaJ, and economic disparities among the states and districts required the use of a stratified random sampling plan. Stratification of these states into district categories signifying different levels of rural market potential was done on the basis of the Thompson Rural Index. (It identifies 6 levels of rural market potential from A to F, based on 11 indicators which are relative measures of physical, economic, and human endowments.) The sample size was determined keeping time and financial constraints, and statistical reliability in mind, and it was decided to interview 900 respondents and 317 opinion leaders. These respondents were to be contacted in 30 randomly selected districts. Of these districts two

Vikalpa. Vol 7. No 1, January-March, 1982

47

belonged to Category A; five to B; three to C; eleven to D; and the remaining 9 to'E. In the course of the survey, 30 respondents were selected at random from each district. A set of questionnaires was designed to obtain information on demand characteristics, usage pattern, economics of tractor use, product attribute preferences, and other details from tractor owners, users, non-users, trade representatives, and opinion leaders. The basic questionnaire was pre-tested in villages around Delhi and was subsequently suitably modified on the basis of the feedback. The sampling plan of the opinion survey was aimed at serving qualitative and quantitative answers to the following questions: 1. Who are the tractor users/owners ? 2. Why do they buy ? 3. Why do they not buy ? 4. What do they lack for in the product ? 5. How do they use it ? Responses to these and related questions were sogght at four levels: 1. The end user of the product i.e., the farmer; 2. The opinion leaders, Block Development Officers (BDOs) and District Agricultural Officers(DAOs); 3. Trade representatives such as dealers; and 4. Tractor manufacturers. The impact of the economic as well as noneconomic variables have been examined on the buying and use behaviour of farmers Trends in demand for tractors. Table 1 shows the demand for tractors from 1961-62 to 1976-77. (Demand = Production + ImportExport). It is evident from Table 1 that the demand for tractors over this period has increased substantially (although it is lower than government projections). However, the demand has risen in spurts attributable to spurts in domestic productions and/or imports. During 1966-67 to 1971-72 the increase in demand was due to heavy import of tractors. The post 1971-72 increase is, however, due to a steady increase in the domestic supply which has entirely replaced imports. The demand slackened after 1975. Lately, however, tractor demands seems to have again picked up strongly. The 1980 figure is around 60,000

units and the 1981 figures is about 83,000 units (See The Economic Times 2nd Jan, 1982, p.6)
Table .1 Apparent demand of tractors in India

Apr-Mar

Production

Imports

Exports Net availability

1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77

880 1,414 1,983 4,323 5,714 8,816 1 1 ,394 1 5,437 17,101 19,535 16,570 20',676 24,204 31,101 33,059 33,107

2,997 2,616 2,346 2,323 1,989 2,591 4,038 12,397 12,701 16,679 19,739 1,000

28 44 634 148 NA

3,877 4,030 4,329 6,646 7,703 1 1 ,407 1 5,432 27,834 29,802 36,214 36,309 21,648 24,1 60 30,967 32,911 33,107

Source : Directorate General of Technical Development, Ministry of Industrial Development, Govt. of India.

Pattern of demand: Survey findings Size of land holding and fragmentation It has often been argued that farm mechanization is inhibited by the small size of the holding and its fragmentation. A survey of farmers and opinion leaders in the northern states was undertaken to identify the effects of these two variables on the use or non-use of tractors (Table 2). There was no significant difference between the size of holdings and fragmentation of landsforthese two categories of farmers. This is in accordance with the findings of Patel (15), Ladejinsky (8), Hirschman(4)andNCAER(14). Patel shows that since a small tractor is associated with the related low fixed costs (and, therefore, low risk), it is the least risky investment in terms of profitability. He also finds that the size of holdings would not have any appreciable impact on the use/non-use of tractor decision. The Japanese economy has often being cited as an example of farm mechanization even on small fragmented holdings (6, 12).

48

Vikalpa

Table 2 Average size and number of holdings

Table 3 Preferential rating of tractor attributes

Attribute Average Average size Average size of Largest Smallest no. of holding plot plot plots Tractor Mean 12.95 6.61 5.61 6.88 5.89 3.18 2.57 3.14 2.45 3.52 2.26 3.40 2.83 Horse-power rating Low cost of operations Reliability Ease of operations After sales service and spares availability Price Re-sale value Quick availability of tractors

Rank 1 'i 3 4 5 6 7 8

users (n = 300) Standard 6.90 deviation NonMean 13.67 users (n = 600) Standard 6.72 deviation

Preferred attributes Among the factors on which a farmer's choice of a tractor depends are the power rating of the tractor and the relative importance he places on its attributes which, according to him, make up his personal concept of a good product. In forming this concept he is often dependent on his own and others' experience with tractors and implements, and on opinion leaders' recommendations. Table 3 reports ranks of preferences on the tractor's product attributes. Here, high rank for power rating and low cost of operations indicate the farmer's consciousness of performance and economy. Next in importance'dre reliability and operational ease. These, together with after sales services and spares availability, reflect the farmer's concern for not being stranded with a tractor that does network. In other words, a farmer is very particular about minimizing the downtime of his tractor due to breakdowns, etc. The low ranking for price, in relation to other attributes, shows that only if other (higher rated) attributes are satisfactorily met with in a brand of tractor, is the farmer concerned with the cost of his investment on the tractor. In other words, if a higher priced tractor satisfies the first four attributes and a lower priced tractor does not, the farmer would opt for the first. Finally, the last ranking for quick availability of tractor indicates that a farmer would be willing to wait

(within limits, of course) for a tractor of his choice. Based on these findings, an "optimum" tractor would be one with the features emphasized as per Table 3. A good tractor should be economical to operate even at the cost of raising its price marginally. Brand preferences for 20 brands/models available in the market were also .obtained through the survey. Five brands, namety Massey Ferguson, HMT/Zeton, International Ford, and Hindustan, account for more than 75 per cent of the total first preferences. Table 4 reports the ranking of attributes for each of these brands. It is evident that the tractor which matches the attributes ranked in Table 3 has been preferred most i.e., Massey Ferguson. For such a tractor the farmer is prepared to wait most and even pay a higher price. Comparing the horse power (an important attribute of a tractor) preferences from the farmers' survey with the horse powfr-wise production-mix availability at a given point of time one comes across the situation as presented in Table 5. As the table shows, there may be excess demand for small sized (up to 35 hp) tractors. Range switching has been thought to be a phenomenon which sub-optimizes net gain (6). It is, therefore, in the interest of the farmer to refrain from such activity. But the farmer does so because tractors available in his rangedonot possess the attribute profile he desires (15). Switching can thus be reduced only through an appropriate technology choice and correct product-mix.

Vikalpa, Vol. 7. No. 1, January-March, 1982

Reasons for non-purchase Table 6 reports the reasons for non-purchase

Reasons for non-purchase Table 6 reports the reasons for non-purchase of tractor across the 6 states in the survey. It is evident that non-availabiliy of a particular brand of tractor is a very important factor, especially in the relatively affluent states. This further supports the contention that those deciding to buy are forced to purchase a tractor which does not suit their requirements. Lack of funds is another major constraint on the purchase decision. Almost 50 per cent of tractor owners reported that they had purchased the tractor through bank borrowings. The percentage of respondents who feel that a tractor is unprofitable is not very high considering the fact that most of these respondents had not gone in for other changes
50

in a long time. The last category of "other reasons," broadly consisted of socio-cultural reasons for non-purchase of tractors. Labour replacement Tractors are being used for a wide variety of power applications, some of which have been traditionally done by manpower or bullockpower. It has been emphasized earlier that mechanization (tractorization) does not result in replacement of labour. Myrdal (13) has asserted "... the underutilisation of labourforce in underdeveloped countries can be seen as the result of
V/kalpa

using primitive technology. For it is an empirically testable general rule that, with very few exceptions, technological advance would not be labour saving but on the contrary would require a higher and more efficient input of labour." Some of the Indian studies on this subject have supported this hypothesis. Grewal and Kahlon (3) found a marginal increase in labour requirement on the tractorized large farms in Punjab. Bal (1) on the other hand found that while tractorization reduced the labour by 8 per cent, it raised the demand of casual labour by 151 per cent. Similar findings are reported by Singh (19), Sarkar and Praladhachar (16). While supporting this hypothesis, this survey showed the activity-wise use of tractor on a farm (Table 7).
Table? Activitywise tractor use

Table 8 Power source on three categories of farms

Power source

Total power input on Tractor Tractor Non-users' owners' users' farms farms farms (Unit power source * day/'acre/year)

Tractor

3.00

2.41 9.24 30.09 10.43 26.25

BulloCk power 6.54 (1 bullock unit) Manpower 26.42

displacement of conventional power sources, it replaces bullock power, not manpower. Conclusion

PreIrrigation Harvesting harvest activity

Transport

Tractor 46 owner's farm Tractor 30 user's farm

17 24

15 28

22 17

The findings show a more balanced usage pattern at the tractor user's farm than at the owner's farm. In the case of the latter, maximum usage of the tractor as a power source lies in pre-harvest activity and transport. A comparison between the source-wise, and use-wise power input in the three categories of farms (owner's, users, and non-user's) is reported in Table 8. The total bullock power per acre is much higher on non-tractorized farms as compared to the same on tractorized farms, yet manpower input on the latter is not lower than the same for the former. Thus, if tractorization leads at all to

It may thus be concluded from the foregoing discussion that neither the character nor the size of the holdings is an inhibitor for the farmer to use a tractor, nor is tractor use significantly labour replacing. In fact, it should accompany other changes in agricultural technology. On the other hand, the non-use of tractor may partially be a result of non-availability of the right kind of tractor. During the survey, it was found that a large number of farmers who had the resources and inclination to use tractors were still not using them for various social reasons. In Other words, for these farmers the social or cultural systems of society were acting as constraints though they were convinced of the economic viability of using tractors on their farms. For instance, nonuse by a class of people (say, a caste) in a village was reported as a reason by many for their nonuse. This has implications for tractor manufacturing enterprises. In devising their marketing strategies these firms should identify opinion leaders who can help neutralize the effect of the class which is averse to tractor purchase. This, in addition to producing the right kind of tractors, should go a long way in helping technological changes in Indian agriculture.

Vikalpa, Vol. 7. No. 1, January-March, 1982

51

References

Bal, H.S., "Impact of mechanization," Agricultural situation in India, (New Delhi: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of India), April 1974 Billings, M.H.; and Singh, A., "Labour and Green Revolution: The experience in Punjab," Economic and Political Weekly. December 27, 1969. Grewal, S.S.; and Khalon, A.S., "Factors influencing labour employment," Agricultural situation in India, April, 1974. Hirachman, Albert O., "Problem solving and reform mongering," ir\ Journeys towards progress. (New York: Doubleday, 1965).

11. Little, Ian, et a I., Industry and trade in somn developini/ countries: A comparative study, (London: Oxford University Press, 1970).
12. Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian drama: An inquiry into poverty of nations. Vol. 2, (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1968) 13. ______ The challenge of world poverty, (London: Penguin Press, 1970). 14. NCAER, Demand for tractors. New Delhi, 1974 15. Patel, M.S., "Selection of tractors," The Economic Times, November 12, 1976 16. Sarkar, K.K.; and Praladhachar, M.. "Mechanization as a technological change," Indian Journal of Agri cultural Economics, January, 1966. 17. Shah, R.D.A., The impact of Green Revolution and jobs, (Washington: Overseas Development Council, 1970). 18. Shivamaggi, H.B., "Agricultural labour problem: Past mosconceptionsandnewguidelines/'fconom/canda/ Political Weekly, A41-49, March, 1969. 19. Singh, B., "Economics of tractor cultivation: A case Study," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, January, 1968. 20. Sisodia, J.S., "Some economic apsects of high yielding varieties programme of Indore district," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. October, 1968. 21. Tripathy, R.N.; and Samal B., "Economics of HYV in IADP: A study of Sambalpur in Orissa," Economic and Political Weekly. October 25, 1969.

Inukai, I., Fuller utilization of rural manpower, farm mechanization, output and labour 'inputCusu in Thailand. (Geneva: ILO, 1969). Johnston, Bruce f ..Agriculture and economic development: The relevance of Japanese experience. Food Research, 1966.Kao, C.H.D., "Disguised unemployment in agriculture: A survey," in Eicher, C.K.; and Lawrence, Witt (eds.), Agriculture in economic development (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). Ladejlnsky, W., "A noteon small farmers," (himeo), US AMDS: 1965. Lawrence, R., "Some economic as|>ects of farm mechanization in Pakistan," (Mimeo), 1970 Reported extensively in Yudelman et al., 1971. Lipton, M., "Strategy for agriculture: Urban bias and rural planning," in Streeten, Paul; and Lipton, Michael (eds.) Crisis of Indian planning, (London:Oxford University Press, 1968).

10.

22. Turnham, David, The employment problem in less developed countries: A review of evidence. (Paris: OECD Development Centre, 1971). 23. Yudelman, Montague; et, al. Technological change in agriculture.and employment in developing countries (Paris: OECD Development Centre, 1971)

52

Vikalpa