Farm Size, Factor Productivity and Returns to Scale

under Different Types of Water Management

Arindam Banik

It used to be claimed, notably in Indian subcontinent that there is either a positive or negative significant relationship
between land productivity and farm size. Attempts were made to explain the relationship using two important factors,
viz, disguise unemployment and imperfection offactor markets. Solutions such as supply of inputs, land reform, etc,
were suggested. Yet in poorer countries the odds are that even within a village and during any peak farm operation
the question of disguise unemployment is liable to be troublesome in rice economies as these are time-specific and
water management-specific. What is thus interesting and seems to have been missed out by the existing literature is
that several of the factors can be exacerbated or minimised depending on the management of water in question.
This article re-explores the problem on the basis of field studies in Bangladesh. The study is unable to trace any
kind of significant relationship between the farm size and land productivity in both monsoon and rabi season. Instead,
it appears that water management in a specific land elevation is most relevant in a village in explaining land productivity
differentials.

I In view of the problems stated above, we
Introduction
THE different land elevations coupled with
inefficient water management constitute
the single constraining factor in enhancing
agricultural growth in Bangladesh.
Although the country receives more rainfall
than can even be effectively used, the
problem is the very uneven seasonal
distribution of water supply. During
monsoon (mid-June to mid-September) the
high level of rainfall increases water flows
of the big rivers which raised river beds
fail to carry, causing extensive flood on flat
terrains of Bangladesh. It is estimated that
over 60 per cent of the total cultivated area
is flooded annually up to a depth of three
feet and above. Out of this, approximately
15 per cent of the total area is flooded to
an extent of six feet or more, making crop
production virtually impossible. In the
remaining nine months of the year,
however, the amount of rainfall in most of
the country is so meagre that effective
paddy cultivation is impossible without
irrigation. In addition to this, there is the
constant danger of natural disasters such
as cyclones or tidal waves that inundate
large part of the country with salt water.
The topographic conditions in Bangla-
desh thus give rise to a precarious
environment. Since crops are often subject
to abnormal floods, a large part of paddy
acreage under low land elevation must be
planted with traditional varieties of paddy.
Under these conditions crop failures are
frequent and the application of improved
seeds, chemical fertilisers and pesticides
turn out to be a risky experiment for the
majority of small farmers. And these small
farm households constituting 70 per cent
of the total farm households cultivate 28
per cent of the total net cultivated area
[Banik 1990].
propose to investigate the production
behaviour of farms under different types
of land elevations with/without assured
irrigation both in monsoon and rabi season.
Farm size has been taken as the operational
unit which largely depends on the extent
of tenancy. The types of tenancy are,
however, dependent on the levels of land
elevations the changes of agricultural
seasons and the extent of supervision of
cultivation [Banik 1993]. We have also
tried to explore the functional relationship
between farm size and land productivity,
as it yielded a bumper harvest of jargon.
Their views fill economic journals in
explaining the relationship due to various
factors, such as disguise unemployment,
supervision and imperfect-ion of factor
markets. What is thus interesting and
seems to have been missed out by the
existing literature is that several of these
factors can be exacerbated or minimalised
depending on the management of water in
question. We use primary data at the
farm level relating to one village, which
has land under different elevations and
another village, which has assured
irrigation.
In the Section II, we introduce the study
areas, sample frame, method of data
collection and data structure. Section III
discusses the analytical framework. In
Section IV we specify the models to
examine the production behaviour of farms
under different levels of land elevation and
assured irrigation. In Section V we estimate
production functions and returns to scale
on the basis of so far unexplored farm level
data for different land elevations and
assured irrigation. An attempt is also made
to examine the role of different tenurial
agreements on land productivity in the
same section. The functional relation
between farm size and land productivity
had been examined in Section VI. The
findings of this study are summarised at
the end.
II
Field Data
SAMPLE FRAME, METHOD OF COLLECTION AND
DATA STRUCTURE
The field work was conducted from
May 1988 to May 1989, administering
three structural questionnaires. The
villages were selected through a process
involving three stages, viz, regions,
upazila and villages. In view of our
objectives, the regions of Chittagong and
Dhaka were chosen after ascertaining the
following characteristics reflected in the
Agricultural Census of 1977 and 1984
[Government of Bangladesh 1986].
Incidentally, the regions are also repre-
sented as the different agro-climatic zone
of the country.
Chittagong: (1) Large number of small
farms; (2) aman cropped area (monsoon);
(3) different land elevations; and (4) various
tenurial arrangements.
Dhaka: (1) Large number of small farms;
(2) boro cropped area (rabi paddy) under
deep tube-well irrigation; and (3) single
tenurial arrangements.
The Hathazari upazila in the south-west
of Chittagong city and Dhamrai upazila in
the south-east of Dhaka city were selected
on the basis of information1 provided in
the upazila statistics.2 We have designed
three sets of questionnaires in Bangla
(Bengali) language: The first set relates to
the selection of villages Information on
land elevations, nature o4 technology, soil
quality, problems in adopting modern
technology, sources of irrigation, tenurial
type, road and infrastructure were
incorporated in this set. The respondents

Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994 A-175

were local elites.' Our second set of
questionnaires was based on enumeration
of all household population to frame the
sample for the study. The third set contains
all basic inquiries about farm's behaviour.
We have selected Sarkarhat (Chittagong)
and Chota Asulia (Dhaka) on the basis of
first set of questionnaire. The two reasons
that led us to select these villages are;
Different land elevations and assured (deep
tube-well) irrigation. The first village,
Sarkarhat in Chittagong region comprises of
different land elevations with management
of natural water sources of hill river, the
Halda.5 The other village, Chota Asulia in
Dhaka has assured deep tube-well irrigation
and planned water management in rabi
season.
After ascertaining the information on the
basis of our second questionnaire, we have
distinguished the household population into
different categories, viz, non farm-household
and operational farm-household. We have
adopted farm-household as unit of
enumeration. Therefore, depending on the
size of land operated by the cultivators, the
number of farm-household were grouped
into small, middle and large farms. In this
respect we have followed the latest
agricultural census classification of farm:
Small (0.05 - 2.49 acres), middle (2.50 - 7.49
acres) and large (7.50 acres and above). A
sample of 100 and 99 farm-households from
Sarkarhat and Chota Asulia respectively were
selected applying the technique of
proportional allocation with probability to
size,' The data was collected (as per third
and final questionnaire) from June 16,1988
to May 20, 1989 (1st of Ashar, 1395 to
Jaishtha 13% according to Bangla calendar).
The period covered was normal in the sense
that no unusual flood, drought and/or plant
disease affected productive activities. The
overall quality of data was reasonably good.
Analytical Framework
Any study of agricultural production of
a particular region requires specific
knowledge of the agro-climatic conditions,
natural endowments and land elevations.
Furthermore, one needs to also know the
level of technological assistance provided
by the state in terms of assured irrigation,
quality of labour and tenurial institutions
including state policies on land for any
meaningful causal analysis of agricultural
production.
However, in this study the different levels
of land elevation appear to be the single most
important factor explaining the extent of
high yielding paddy. This is because the
high yielding paddy varieties are found to
be responsive in high- and mid-level land
elevations only due to favourable physical
conditions during the monsoon. As a result.
A-176
all estimates of the production elasticities of Returns to scale = Coefficient of X, + 1
inputs are expected to be positive. Thus d denotes economies or diseconomies
A contrasting situation has been observed of scale.
in the case of low land elevation where land However, the observed value of output Y
gets submerged during the monsoon. is a function of not only the factors of
Therefore, instead of the high yielding variety production such as X,, X2, X, and X4 but
of paddy only traditional variety is grown also several other variables particularly the
on low land. Furthermore, the need for tenancy and elevation factors such as X5, XA,
chemical fertiliser is minimal with traditional X?, XM and Xy. Therefore we intend to use
variety. this extended version of the production
During rabi season, on the other hand, function estimating the impact of tenancy
irrigation is a prerequisite for adoption of and land elevation factors on land
high yielding paddy variety as paddling of productivity. However returns to scale has
soil for transplantation of seedlings cannot been measured from the equation (I).
be done without access to water. This is also The extended version of our output
a relatively slack season for agricultural function can be written as:
activity and a significant proportion of land
remains fallow due to non-availability of
water. However, different modes of irrigation
may account for the variation in the land
productivity. For example, if the area is
provided with deep tube-well, the supply of
water may be stable. The situation may turn
out to be different when an area is to depend
on the tidal variation of the river for water
supply. In this case farmers in the low land
areas are in a position to use resources fully
as the said elevation is favourable for
irrigation. But, it may not be possible for
farmers in high and mid land elevations to
'take maximum advantage of irrigation. Quite
often in high and mid land elevations, the
supply of water through natural sources is
not stable.
IV
Production Function Specification
We start with the usual Cobb-Douglas
production function:
Y = C X,K| X ^ < < X4h<
where Y stands for output in Bangladesh
Taka, X{ far land, X2 for price of human
labour hours in Bangladesh Taka, X,
fertiliser in kgs in Bangladesh Taka and
X4 price of bullock pair hours in Bangladesh
Taka, b ( , b r b^ and b4 are the respective
elasticities. By dividing both the sides of
above equation with land (in acres) we obtain
the following equation for land productivity, The relationship between farm size and
land productivity is reflected in d. If the
variable, farm size, directly and positively
influences land productivity then the value
of d should be greater than zero. The
above mentioned functional forms have been
fitted to the farm-level observations including
small, larger, owner, owner-tenant and tenant
farms.
DEFINITION OF VARIABLES
Dependent Variable
Y Output in Bangladesh Taka in current
price for single crop/all crops
Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994
Explanatory Variables labour and treated as a separate variable. It bullock labour. We have prepared weighted
is possible to take labour under different index of bullock and milch cow pair hours,
X( Land/Farm size (in acres) types (family and hired) separately as taking one pair hour of bullock labour equals
X2 Price of human labour hours (family, explanatory variable in our analysis. But we two pair hours of milch cow labour used at
permanent and hired) engaged in all have avoided such disaggregation due to the time of tilling and threshing. The implicit
agricultural operations for single crop technicalities as our large and middle farmers assumption is that all these types of bullock
except at the time of tilling and threshing are fully dependent on casual and permanent and milch cow labour are homogeneous.
in Bangladesh Taka. labour with family labour being negligible. The variable X 4 should therefore be
X, Fertiliser in kgs (urea, potash, zinc and Therefore, our X2 is a composite index of interpreted cautiously. Excess rainfall may
TSP) for single crop in Bangladesh human labour hours engaged in different cause waterlogging in low land and therefore,
Taka. stages of paddy cultivation. The operations restrict tilling of land and in turn may render
X4 Price of bullock pair hours attached with of human labour are very much tied to a time bullock labour ineffective. On the other
human labour (family and hired) for frame in seasonal crop cultivation with extreme, the efforts of bullock labour to
single crop at the time of tilling and increasing risk and cost associated with influence land productivity in rabi season
threshing. delays. The exponent of X2 is expected to may be rendered ineffective due to non-
X5 Net rented-in land (for an agricultural be positive. availability of complementary inputs in time
year). The factor X, stands for quantity (in value) due to credit shortage and/or unstable water
X^ Net rented-in land morabhaga (fixed of fertiliser per acreage which is often supply.
commodity a g r e e m e n t ) ( f o r an considered as technical progress parameter.
agricultural year). It is possible to incorporate alt the different RETURNS TO SCALE AND INPUT ELASTICITIES
X7 Net rented-in land under samanbhaga plant nutrients separately. Our farmers,
(sharecropping without cost share however, do not use plant nutrients frequently In Table 1 we present the ordinary least
agreement) (for an agriculture season). and therefore, we have decided to use squares estimates of land productivity
XK Net rented-in land under phansh-bish- composite fertiliser index as one variable in equation 1 relating to aman boro and all
kharach (sharecropping with cost share our production function. In normal crop crops both in Sarkarhat and Chota Asulia
agreement) (for an agriculture season). cultivation X^ is expected to have a positive at different land elevations. It seems that in
X„ Elevation dummy. For monsoon season, impact on land productivity. the high land areas there is strong evidence
mid land and high land = 1, low land Human labour as a factor to production of increasing returns to scale, while in the
= 0; but for an agricultural year, mid has two components: (1) human labour mid and low land areas, the evidence is
land and high land = 0, low land = I. excluding tilling and threshing, and (2) more in favour of decreasing constant
Xlfl Gross cropped area per net cultivated human labour attached with bullock labour returns to scale. The reported results relate
area, i e, cropping intensity. at the time of tilling and threshing. The to rainfed crops in monsoon season only.
distinction is important as there is a In the rabi season, however, decreasing
V complementarity with human labour and returns to scale is observed both in Chota
Production Function Estimates
We have estimated the two equations (I
and 2) separately across the three different
land elevations in Sarkarhat for both monsoon
and rabi seasons. In the case of Chota Asulia
our estimates relate to only rabi season with
assured irrigation facilities. 7 We may begin
with some comments on each of the
explanatory variables arising out of our
experiences on field survey. In any village
level study irrigation as an explanatory
variable is not treated separately in the context
of variations incropping pattern and different
land elevations. In the monsoon season, the
variation in rainfall or humidity is understood
to be constant across all land elevations in
a village. But the adoption of high yielding
variety seeds is determined by access to
irrigation which is affected by different
elevations of cultivable land. Hence, land
elevation appears to be a critical factor. Thus
instead of assuming homogeneous cropping
pattern, we have estimated the equations in
the context of different land elevations.
Hence, our Y represents the value of output
per acre at a specific land elevation and in
a specific crop season.
Our X2 measures the valueof human labour
hours used in crop production per acre
including family and hired (casual and
permanent), It excludes human labour applied
during tilling as that is clubbed with bullock

A-194 Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994 A-177

Asulia and m/d and low land of Sarkarhat. by' the Rao-Chow test. The results are at low elevation cultivating aman (traditional)
However, if we assume away the differences presented in the form of an analysis of (Table 4).
in land elevation and cropping pattern in variance in Tables 2 and 3. The coefficients In boro (HYV) cultivation (rabi season)
Sarkarhat, the returns to scale appear to be in four equations were not found to be the effect of X? is negative both in mid and
constant. significantly different except the one in low land in Sarkarhat. It is to be mentioned
As for the coefficients of different factors respect of mid land. here that we have observed the prevalence
of production in the Sarkarhat monsoon of phansh-bish-kharach agreement (cost of
season' equations (Table 1) b2 relating to X2 IMPACT OF LAND ELEVATION AND TENANCY fertiliser and pesticides) (X„) in rabi season
(human labour) is high in all areas. However, ON LAND PRODUCTIVITY at the time of boro cultivation in Sarkarhat.
the highest coefficient is observed in the The coefficient bx is positive and insignificant
case of high land (1.33) and the lowest in To examine the impact of tenurial in mid land but positive and significant in
mid land (0.53) equations. But the coefficient agreements on land productivity we have low land. The coefficient of pattan (cash rent
of the same variable (X2) turns out to be 0.15 estimated the extended form of production agreement) (X3) the only tenurial agreement
when the assumption of differential land function' in equation 2. The impact of observed in Chotta Asulia10 is however
elevation in monsoon season is dropped. elevationwise but undifferentiated tenancy negative and insignificant. This is likely as
The coefficient b3 relating to X? (fertiliser) (X5) on land productivity is negative having bothowner and tenant farms recorded similar
is, however, positive but low in all cases as significant coefficient at 1 per cent level in productivity gains from adoption of the new
being 0.16,0.05, 0.08 in high, mid and low the case of mid land in Sarkarhat. When technology where assured irrigation (deep
land respectively. The coefficient b4 relating tenancy is differentiated into 'morabhaga' tube-well) is available [Mellor 1986; Ruttan
to variable X4 (bullock labour) is found to (fixed commodity) (Xft) 'samanbhaga' 1977; Hayami and Kikuchi 1986).
be positive in its effect when observations (sharecropping without cost share) (X7),
4
of all the farmers are aggregated. However, phansh-bish-kharach' (cost of fertiliser and VI
the impact of X4 (bullock labour) on Y (land pesticides) (XK) its impact on land Influence of Farm Size on
productivity) although in expected direction productivity turns out to be different as Land Productivity
appears to be insignificant in mid and low compared to the earlier result. In aman (HYV)
land (Sarkarhat). cultivation (monsoon) in Sarkarhat-high The important question being investigated
In rabi season when irrigation is available, land, Xft is negative and significant but the here is whether the prevailing agrarian
the coefficients relating to X2 and X v are effect of X7 is positive and significant. In structure with unequal land distribution has
positive and show high levels of significances the mid land, however, the same X7 is negative led to under utilisation of land and hence
irrespective of land elevations in both the and significant. In monsoon season, X7 is relatively low productivity among large farms
villages. However, in general, b ^ t h e again found positive and significant on land as compared to smaller ones in our sample.
coefficient relating to X3 (fertiliser) is found
to be greater than b2, the coefficient for X2
(human labour). In fact; b^ coefficient
demonstrates high elasticity in mid (0.53)
and low land (0.38) in Sarkarhat and 0.28
in Chota Asulia. Thus the responsiveness of
yield to fertiliseruseappears tobesubstantial.
Next to X^ it is X2 which appears to be the
most dominating variable. However, in rabi
season it is more or less same across the
different land elevations both in Sar&arhat
and assured irrigated area in Chota Asulia.
This is expected as in the slack season it is
hard to get employment in villages.
Moreover, we have observed a trend of
rural-rural migration from the villages where
crop is not grown due to lack of investment
in irrigation to areas having assured irrigation
as in Chota Asulia.
The coefficient for X4 (bullock labour) is
positive and significant implying economic
utilisation of bullock labour. This is supported
by our observation that 48 per cent of the
farmers till their land using hired bullock.
The variable X4 presents theopposite picture
in Sarkarhat with nagative and statistically
significant coefficient. As stated earlier, this
is not unexpected since during the slack
season (January-April) there is hardly any
agricultural activities in Sarkarhat, hence
poor households with the available bullock
power might have tilled their land intensively
but failed to obtain credit in time for boro
(HYV cultivation).
All the estimated six equations were tested
for the equality of corresponding coefficients

A-178 94 Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994

However, it is generally argued that land
scarce countries like Bangladesh could hardly
expect any production gain from land
redistribution, as the so-called large farms
are already of a very modest sire (average
10.42 acres) by international standards.
However, the existence of constant returns
to scale in our land productivity equation
implies that output per acre is independent
of the size of the farm. Our objective here
is to examine the validity of the relationship
between farm size and land productivity"
in the context of two different villages of
Bangladesh: Sarkarhat and Chota Asulia.
However, the selection of variables to be
incorporated in such econometric model
poses some problems. At first sight, one
could think of estimating equation between
Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994
two variables only, viz, the size of farm
(operation in acres) and output per acre. But
it is likely to result in a spurious relationship
as in reality there exist numerous other factors
which bear on the" productivity of land
operated by individual farms.
In estimating the relationship between
operational farm size and land productivity,
the usual practice is to treat the entire farm
area as a homogenous unit irrespective of
land located in different elevations and
whether the same is owned and rented. But
it has already been pointed out that agrarian
structures show varying tenurial agreements.
Moreover, if the land in a village is located
at different elevations the productivity
differentials can be explained also by these
factors. Since the village credit market is
neither organised nor controlled some
tenants go in for cost-sharing agreements
with landlords to avoid transaction costs
of soliciting credit in an informal credit
market [Banik 1993]. Such tenants
invariably show higher land productivity
as compared to those farmers who could
not avail the cost-sharing arrangements.12
Therefore, many diverse factors and not
merely the farm size alone affect land
productivity across farms.
Still, we are interested to examine the
relationship between farm size and land
productivity for which the equations (3), (4)
and (5) have been specified, where besides
farm size, the dummy variable for land
elevation and cropping intensity have been
used as explanatory factors. In Table 5 we
A-179
have presented the land elevationwise SUMMARY investigation, adoption of bio-chemical
estimates of the above three equations for technology depends on various tenurial
monsoon, rabi and all seasons in both the We have fitted production functions using agreements and physical characteristics of
villages. Such results are being reported the farm level primary data in two villages land. In rabi season, the elasticity of
for the first time in this line of research. of Bangladesh, one with different land yield with respect to human labour and
From our results with the help of equation elevations (Sarkarhat) and the other, with fertiliser have turned out to be positive and
(3) we are unable to trace any kind of assured irrigation (Chota Asulia). nearly equal both in Sarkarhat and Chota
significant relationship between farm size The econometric exercises have shown Asulia.
and land productivity in both monsoon and that decreasing returns to scale prevails in ' We have examined the impact of different
rabi seasons under different land elevations Sarkarhat mid-land cultivation in mon- types of tenurial agreements on land
in Sarkarhat. On the other hand' the result soon season. In the low land areas on the productivity through extended form of
is inverse during rabi season in Chota Asulia other hand constant returns to scale is production function. It is interesting to note
although the coefficient of farm size (X,) observed. In rabi season, decreasing that elevationwise but undifferentiated
is considerably low and so also R2. returns to scale is observed in both Chota tenancy have significant negative effect on
However, if all the 100 observations Asulia and Sarkarhat under mid and low land productivity. When tenancy is
(number of farms) are pooled together by land elevations. differentiated in morabhaga (fixed com-
assuming homogeneous land elevation and The estimates of production function modity agreement) Ananbhaga (share-
uniform cropping pattern the same equation indicate that human labour is the important cropping with cost share), phansh-bish-
(3)isfitted,theinverserelationshipbetWcen input to which yield on land at different eleva- kharach (sharecropping without cost share),
farm size and land productivity is significant tions is highly responsive in the monsoon . its effect on land productivity turns out to
in Sarkarhat albeit showing a weak season in Sarkarhat. The results yield a be different. Our analysis yield that greater
coefficient and low R2 (monsoon season). significant contribution of bio-chemical prevalence of samanbhaga in monsoon
The incorporation of land elevation in the technology although in terms of magnitude, season on high and low land elevations is
above model (equation 4) in Sarkarhat the coefficient is quite modest. This is easily associated with larger land productivity. The
during monsoon season gives us a different explained by the fact that in areas under findings contradict the view that share-
result. Thus, the most important empirical
result of this exercise appears to be between
farm size and the productivity. They have
an inverse relationship but significant
explanatory power is obtained with the
inclusion of land elevation. This is seen,
from the R2 increases from 0.05 to 0.16,
between equations (3) and (4).
Our examination of non-universality of
the relationship between farm size and land
productivity becomes clear in our
equation (5) where we have cropping
intensity (X |n ) as one explanatory variable
(Table 5). In Sarkarhat, the coefficient is
not at all significant except in low land area'
where it shows a weak inverse relationship.
But the picture of cropping intensity (X10)
is always highly significant in terms of V
ratio and also in terms of strong coefficient.
The relationship is, however, not at all
valid for the pooled observations. It is to
be mentioned here that access to irrigation
has a direct relationship with favourable
land elevation and therefore, the cropping
intensity can only increase due to this
specific factor. In such a situation cropping
intensity demonstrates high explanatory
power but the usual farm size productivity
relationship is found to be invalid. The
picture that emerges in the case of Chota
Asulia is not very different from that of
Sarkarhat although it shows a weak inverse
relationship in terms 'of V ratio and
coefficient.
Thus the most important result that emerges
is not the "inverse relationship" between
farm size and land productivity but the
important role of land elevation and water
management.'1 These factors appear to be
more relevant in a village in explaining land
productivity differentials than the usual
variable farm size'.

A-180 94 Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994

c r o p p i n g poses i m p e d i m e n t to land
productivity. In rabi season, the effect of
p h a n s h - b i s h - k h a r a c h o n land p r o d u c t i -
vity appears to b e positive on mid and low
land.
T h e relationship between farm size and
land productivity has been e x a m i n e d
separately taking the size of f a r m as the only
explanatory variable. T h e study is unable to
trace any kind of significant relationship
between farm size and productivity in both
monsoon and rabi season on land at different
elevations in Sarkarhat. O n the other hand,
the result is inverse during rabi season in
Chota Asulia although R 2 is considerably
low. But when the total sample of f a r m s are
p o o l e d t o g e t h e r i r r e s p e c t i v e of l a n d
elevations and cropping pattern and regressed
on land productivity, the relationship has
been found to be inverse and significant but
with a low R2. T h e incorporation of land
elevation as a d u m m y variable in the above
pooled model in Sarkarhat provides similar
results. But the most important finding relates
to the significant explanatory power of the
d u m m y variable f o r high and mid-land
e l e v a t i o n s . O u r e x a m i n a t i o n of n o n -
universality of the relationship between farm
size and land productivity becomes clear in
an equation where we have used cropping
intensity and f a r m size as e x p l a n a t o r y
variables. T h e relationship between farm
size and land productivity is not at all
s i g n i f i c a n t in a n y d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e
e l e v a t i o n w i s e and pooled o b s e r v a t i o n s .
However, cropping intensity demonstrates
high explanatory power. It is not unusual as
access to irrigation has a direct relationship
with favourable land elevation and therefore,
cropping intensity can increase due to this
factor. It is, therefore, clear that land elevation
as a factor is more relevant in a village in
explaining land productivity differentials
than the usual variable "farm size'.
Glossary of Local Terms
Aman: Monsoon paddy - broadcast and trans-
plant (HYV and traditional)
Broadcast'(traditional): March-mid Novem-
ber to mid-January.
Transplant (traditional): Mid June-mid
August to mid November-mid January.
Transplant (HYV): mid June-mid August to
mid November-mid January.
Boro: Rabi season paddy - HYV and traditional.
Traditional (transplant): Mid November-mid
January to mid April-mid June.
HYV (transplant): Mid December-mid
February to mid April-June.
Bangla: Official language of Bangladesh
(Bengali).
Mouza: Lowest administrative unit, containing
on average 1.600 population living in one or
many villages.
Morobhaga: Fixed amount of commodity tenurial
agreement for one crop-year irrespective of
output.
Pattan: Fixed cash tenurial agreement for one
crop-year.
Phansh-bish-kharach: Equal share of crop (with-
out straw) valid only for the boro paddy in
rabi season when landlords bear cost of
fertiliser and pesticides.
Samanbhaga: Equal share of crop (without straw)
valid only for aman paddy during monsoon
season.
Rabi: Rabi crops are grown November-March.
Upzila: Sub-district, first tier of the administra-
tion inhabited by approximately 1,76,000
population.
Zamindar A system of landlord, since abolished.
Notes
[I am extremely grateful to G S Raychaudhuri
and K L Krishna for their valuable suggestions
in the preparation of this paper. Kaushik Basu
provided insightful comments on a preliminary
draft. Discussion to V Pandit was fruitful. Sincere
thanks to Geetha Devi, Leena Prakasan, and
Pushpa R Nair for efficiently typing the
manuscript. Financial grants from the Indian
Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi and
the Winrock International, Dhaka are gratefully
acknowledged.]
1 As for example, farm population, nature of
technology, pattern of land use and
production, etc.
2 Government of Bangladesh. Bangladesh
Population Census: 1981. Union Statistics,
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Dhaka. 1983
for characteristics of the unions.
3 They are upazila' (sub-district) agriculture
and extension officials, high school and
primary school teachers, social workers, and
traders.
4 The village was named after local zamindar.
late Ram Mohan Sarkar. However, the village
is also called as Mirzapur. Sarkarhat falls
under Mirzapur mouza (lowest revenue unit).
For the convenience of the study and as
locally known, we call the village as Sarkarhat,
15 km. Chota Asulia 450 kin.
5 It is useful to define land elevation in the
context of our two study villages. High land
refers to the area which does not get submerged
under water at any time of the year even when
there is excess rain or flood. The land in this
elevation is solely dependent on rainfall. In
Sarkarhat. high land is called as pahari jami'
and in Chota Asulia it is called as 'palanjami'.
Mid land refers to the type of land which does
not normally get submerged, but when it rains
continuously for 12 days or more the land
submerged by kneedeep water causes
waterlogging for around three weeks or so.
Furthermore, some portion of this land has
access to irrigation. In Sarkarhat and Chota
Asulia, it is called as 'maizzya jami' and 'tani
jami'. respectively. Low land refers to the
type of land which remains under water for
more than three months in a year. Such land
may go under waist deep water or more during
the month of Ashar-Sravan (mid-June to mid-
August) due to overflow of the river Halda
in Sarkarhat. When water recedes (Bhadra or
August-September) some traditional variety
of paddy (aman-chakkal) is grown in such
land during monsoon season. In rabi season,
boro paddy is grown due to easy accessibility
of water. However, in Chota Asulia, the land
having access to assured irrigation remains
under water except polon jami or high land
due to the overflow of the river kakilajani in
the month of Ashar-Sravan-Bhadra( mid-June
to September). In Sarkarhat and Chota Asulia.
the low land is called as bila jami and khoj
jami respectively.
6 Due to rounding error, the number of samples
in Chota Asulia is limited to 99.
7 Production function was not estimated in rabi
season on high land elevation due to small
area (4.34 acres) under irrigation.
8 The comparison of different factors of
production in terms of their elasticity on land
at different elevations is not possible due to
different cropping patterns. However, one
need not be used in the explanatory power
in terms of their magnitudes.
9 Not every farm necessarily participates in
tenancy. Therefore, for some of the farms X v
XA, X7, X„, have zero value and hence their
logarithmic number being minus infinity,
cannot be used in the estimated equation. In
this equation X s , Xh X7, X„, are therefore,
introduced, in natural units.
10 X, has been identified as net rented-in area
per cultivated acreage. In Chota Asulia, we
have observed pattern or 'cash rent agreement'
as the only tenurial agreement. Therefore,
here X, refers to pattern or 'cash rent
agreement'.
11 A lively debate in this context has been
initiated by A K Sen. An Aspect of Indian
Agriculture'. The Economic Weekly 14,
Annual dumber (February 1962): In his
framework he has suggested a negative
relationship between farm size and land
productivity in the context of traditional
agriculture. Later on, some researchers have
argued that the relationship becomes positive
with the advent of green revolution. However,
some researchers have declined to accept any
kind of relationship between these two
variables. On the whole, we inay therefore
categorise this issue into two major groups.
Those who have argued either a positive or
negative relationship are A M Khusro,
'Returns to Scale in Indian Agriculture', butian
Journal of Agricultural Eamonucs 5, No 2
(July-December 1964): 51-80; D Mazumdar,
'The Theory of Sharecropping and Labour
Market Dualism', Economic and Political
Weekly 22, No 2 (April 1975): 1269-163;
C H H Rao, 'Alternative Explanations of
Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and
Output Per Acre in India', Indian Economic
Review I, new series (October 1966): 1-12;
J N Bhagwati and Chakravarty S,
'Contributions to Indian Economic Analysis:
A Survey', American Economics Review 19,
No 4. September 1969, 2-73: K Bharadwaj.
Production Conditions in Indian Agriculture,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974); Pranab Bardhan, Size, Productivity
and Returns to Scale'. Journal of Political
Ectmomy 81, No 8, November/December
1973. 1370-1386; Mahabub Hossain.
Agrarian Structure and Productivity in
Bangladesh, PhD dissertation. Clare College,

Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 1994 A-181

 Cambridge, 1977. The other group of
researchers who do not agree on the existence
of a relationship (either inverse and positive)
between farm size and land productivity are
Ashok Rudra, 'Farm Size and Yield Per
Acre', Economic and Political Weekly 3,
special number, July 1968, M Structure in Bangladesh',
Chottopadhyay and Ashok Rudra, Size
Productivity Revisited', Economic and
Politico' In verse Relationship Science or
Imagination', Economic and Political
Weekly 19, Nos 52 and 53, December 1984:
A189-A 198 They have mainly regarded
this relationship as statistically spurious for
it does not explain the role of numerous
factors governing the relationship between
farm size and land productivity.
12 See results of extended form of production
function reported in Table 4.
13 Land quality depends on the slope of land.
It is also not true that the large number of small
farmers. It is rather randomly distributed where
thereby concentration of small and large farms
as well. Therefore, it is quite logical that
cropping pattern of a specific land elevation
differs from one another depending on the
access to irrigation or excess water supply
from natural sources. So, one should
incorporate land elevation but not land quality
in such analysis. Besides, variations in land
A-182
quality in a specific land elevation is hardly
observed in a village.
References
Banik, Arindam (1990): 'Changes in the Agrarian
Bangladesh
Development Studies, 18(4): 56-65.
- (1993a): HYV Technology and Relative
Productivity of Smalt Farms - A Case
Study of Bangladesh, PhD. Dissertation,
Delhi School of Economics, University of
Delhi.
- (1993b): Structure of the Credit Market and
Its Link with the Other Markets - An Analysis
of Village Survey Data', Indian Economic
Review, 28 (1): 55-71.
Bardhan, Pranab (1973): 'Size, Productivity and
Returns lo Scale', Journal of Political
Economy, 81(8): 1370-186.
Bharadwaj, K (1974): Production Conditions in
Indian Agriculture, Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
Bhagwati. J N. and S Chakravarty (1969):
'Contributions to Indian Economic Analysis:
A Survey', American Economic Review, 19(4).
Hayami, Yujiro and Masao Kikuchi (1986):
Directions of Agrarian Change: A View from
Village in the Philippines' in John W Mellor
and Gunvant M Desai (eds). Agricultural
Economic and Political Weekly
Change and Rural Poverty, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.
Hassain, Mahabub (1977): Agrarian Structure
and Productivity in Bangladesh, PhD
Dissertation, Clare College. Cambridge.
Khusro, A M (1964): 'Returns to Scale in Indian
Agriculture1, Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 5(2): 51-80
Mazumdar, D (1975): 'The Theory of Share-
cropping and Labour Market Dualism', Eco-
nomic and Political Weekly, 22(2), 1263-69.
Pol, Barbier (1984): 'Inverse Relationship
between Farm Size and Land Productivity:
A Product of Science or Imagination',
Economic and Political Weekly 19(52 and
53): A189-A198.
Mellor, John W (1986): 'Determinants of Rural
Poverty: The Dynamic of Production
Technology and Price' in John Mellor and
Guvant Desai (eds), Agriculture and Rural
Poverty,Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Ruttan Vermon, W (1977): 'The Green
Revolution: Seven Generalisations'. Inter-
national Development Review, 19(4): 16-23.
Rudra. Ashok and M Chottopadhyay (1976):
'Size Productivity Revisited', Economic and
Political Weekly, 2(1).
Sen, A K (1962): 'An Aspect of Indian
Agriculture'. Economic and Political Weekly,
14 (Annual Number).
December 1994