DISCUSSION
Farm Size and Productivity
Manabendu Chattopadhyay
Atanu Sengupta
IN a recent polemic directed against our
paper ‘Farm Size Productivity: A New
Look at the Old Debate’ (EPW, Decem-
ber 27, 1997), Graham Dyer (EPW, June
27, 1998) raises some relevant questions.
His comments seem to cast serious doubts
on the legitimacy of our findings. While
admitting that the results appear to be
quite perplexing, given the current state
of the debate, Dyer argues that it has very
slender basis. This note is an attempt to
answer some of the questions raised by
Dyer so that most of the probable mis-
understandings which resulted from Dyer’s
presentations are clarified.
It is clear that Dyer argued on the fol-
lowing important aspects. First, he ques-
tions the validity of the data set which he
considers to be “somewhat compromised”
[Dyer 1998: A-113]. He feels that data on
only one crop, viz, paddy, are quite in-
adequate to draw conclusions regarding
size-productivity relationship. These
anomalies in the data set were further
aggravated by the amorphous distinction
amongst zones and their classifications to
“developed” and “less developed” ones.
Furthermore, he is not clear whether we
have used net cultivated area or gross
cropped area in our regression exercises.
Notwithstanding such data discrepancies,
the methodology used by us at times is
not quite correct, as Dyer seems to sug-
gest. In fact, he asserts that there has been
a blind following of Bhattacharya and
Saini’s (1972) techniques “without fully
understanding the implications noted by
the latter” [Dyer 1998: A-114]. He also
comments that ANCOVA technique ap-
plied by us is not valid and this may be
applicable only for the log-linear model.
Thus by all counts, our findings, though
startling, are laden with serious flaws.
In order to clear some serious apprehen-
sion of Dyer regarding the definitions of
the regress and regressor used for our
regression analysis, we state that we in-
deed regressed value of output per unit of
net cultivated area (V/A) on net cultivated
area (A). Our findings are, therefore, not
weakened by the introduction of a “sig-
nificant bias” [Dyer 1998: A-115].
It is however true that our data set was
somewhat limited since we could consider
only one crop, viz, paddy. It would have
Economic and Political Weekly May 8, 1999
it is just that we have done similar analysis
been better if we could include more crops.
Admitting this limitation, we can stress
that paddy is the most important and major
crop in West Bengal agriculture.1 Hence,
study on paddy should reveal most of the
important characteristics of the region
where it is a major crop. A number of farm
efficiency studies have been based on major
crop only.2 While data analysis based on
a number of crops would certainly pro-
duce results which are closer to reality,
what we wish to point out is that sufficient
insights may also be gathered regarding
farmer’s behaviour while concentrating
on a major crop.
The zonal classification has been made
by Comprehensive Scheme for Studying
Cost of Cultivation (CSSCC) on the basis
of various agroclimatic factors. A single
zone may contain blocks belonging to
different districts.3 Our distinction between
developed and less developed zones was
based primarily on rainfall since Indian
agriculture is highly dependent on rain-
fall. Systematic rainfall reduces the risk
which may provide an impetus towards
adoption of modern technology. We con-
sidered regions receiving normal annual
rainfall (1350-2000mm) as developed
while those receiving above normal (ex-
ceeding 2000mm) as well as below nor-
mal (less than 1350mm) rainfall as less
developed. We agree with Dyer when be
points out that some other relevant vari-
ables may also help to classify the zones
as developed and less developed. But non-
availability of such data is a major con-
straint for such studies in India.
Dyer feels that we have “blindly” fol-
lowed the methodology used by
Bhattacharya and Saini. In this context
it may be imperative to note that Chatto-
padhyay and Rudra (1976) noted that
the work by Bhattacharya and Saini was
statistically most extensive among avail-
able works. However, lack of any dis-
aggregated data prevented Chattopadhyay
and Rudra from undertaking such studies.
Availability of disaggregated data for the
year 1989-90, although inadequate,
prompted Chattopadhyay and Sengupta to
pursue rigorous statistical analysis similar
to that carried out by Bhattacharya and
Saini. There is obviously no question of
blindly following Bhattacharya and Saini;
on the same subject.
Dyer’s assertion about our conclusion
on the nature of the size-productivity re-
lationship seems to be based on the fact
that none of our zonal regressions is sig-
nificant, and that the number of significant
cases at the village level is also low. There
is no justification, therefore, to carry out
the combined x2 test in such a context,
Dyer concludes. While agreeing that on
the basis of statistical evidence we do not
have a strong case to conclude that an
inverse relationship between farm size
and productivity exists, what may be
relevant to state here is that we were guided
more by Bhattacharya and Saini’s asser-
tion that most of the village level regres-
sions are insignificant due to smallness of
the sample size, and yet one may be
interested in carrying out a combined x2
test for finding the nature of overall re-
lation. Results of x2 test for our study
indeed suggest the existence of overall
negative relation between farm size and
productivity. Added to this is the fact that
there was a preponderance of negative
coefficients (although often not signi-
ficant), particularly in the developed
zones. All these seem to give an indica-
tion that the size-productivity relation may
often be negative, although for various
constraints and limitations with the data
it is not possible to conclude strongly
whether the relation is often negative at
the village level in the sense of statistical
significance.
Dyer’s further comment that ANCOVA
analysis is valid only for log-linear model
is rather misleading. In a cross-section
study observations across villages/zones
(in our case) are likely to be heteroscedastic.
Since ANCOVA presumes that variances
across such regressions are the same, log-
linear model would be closer to this as-
sumption than the linear model. This must
not, however, lead one to conclude that
ANCOVA cannot be applied in linear
models. Linear models are often used for
various modelling considerations includ-
ing specificational aspect. Appropriately
speaking, whether linear or log-linear
models, application of ANCOVA would
first require that the hypothesis of equality
of variances be tested. One need not,
however, go into such rigorous applica-
tion of statistical tools in a study like ours
since the purpose of using ANCOVA was
to find the possible effect of aggregation
bias at village/zonal level. Moreover,
consideration of both the linear and log-
1147
linear models for our study was prompted
basically by the visual inspection of scat-
ter diagrams of V/A against A, both at
level and log-values, which suggested that
it was difficult to choose between the two
functional forms.
Dyer seems to possess some weird
notions regarding the robustness of our
results as against the work by Bhattacharya
and Saini. He argues that though we got
similar results both for the x2 as well
as the ANCOVA, our results were less
robust. His conclusion seems to be based
on the fact that Bhattacharya and Saini got
significant results for the OLS at the district
level while we did not. It may be pointed
out that Bhattacharya and Saini them-
selves did not give much importance to
this result and opted for the x2 test for
further reinforcing their conclusions. Thus,
it does not carry much conviction to say
that their results were quite robust while
ours were not at all.
Given the suggestions and interpreta-
tions that Dyer posited in his paper, we
conclude by stating that due to limitations
in our data as well as absence of strong
evidence by some statistical criteria, our
conclusions in the paper cannot be
emphasised strongly. This fact was noted
in our paper also. We never tried to
“generalise” our findings. In all humility
it may however be pointed out that there
are some indications in the present rural
scenario of West Bengal that small farm-
ers are gradually becoming more efficient
compared to the larger ones. This has been
possible partly due to the better availabil-
ity of agricultural inputs among the small
farming families and partly due to the
institutional changes brought about by the
implementation of land reform
programmes and the establishment of the
three-tier panchayat system in the 1980s
in the rural West Bengal. However, the
only way to confirm such findings is to
carry out a primary sample survey. As to
change of position of one of the authors,
there should be no dogmatic inclinations.
In the true scientific spirit of mind, any
genuine researcher must always be ready
to evaluate the existing theories in the
light of changing empirical scenario.
Notes
1 This point has been conceded by Dyer himself
[Dyer 1998: A-113].
2 See, for example, Kumbhakar 1993;
Kumbhakar and Bhattacharya 1992; Sidhu
1974; Sidhu and Baanante 1979; Kalirajan
1981, etc.
3 Zone-IV, for example, comprises of some
blocks belonging to West Dinajpur district as
well as some blocks of Hooghly district.
1148
Reference Kumbhakar, S C (1998): ‘Efficiency Measurement
Using Stochastic Frontier and Non-Frontier
Bhattacharya, N and G R Saini (1972): ‘Farm Models: A Survey of Methods and Appli-
Size and Productivity – A Fresh Look’, cations to Indian Agriculture’ in S R Chakra-
Economic and Political Weekly, Review of varty et al (eds), Quantitative Economics:
Agriculture, Vol 7, No 6. Theory and Practice, Essays in Honour of
Chattopadhyay, M and A Rudra (1976): ‘Size- Professor Nikhilesh Bhattacharya, Allied
Productivity Revised’, Economic and Political Publishers, New Delhi.
Weekly, Vol 11, No 39. Kumbhakar, S C and A Bhattacharya (1992):
Chattopadhyay, M and A Sengupta (1997): ‘Farm ‘Price Distortions and Resource-use Effi-
Size and Productivity – A New Look at the ciency in Indian Agriculture: A Restricted
Old Debate’, Economic and Political Weekly, Profit Function Approach’, The Review of
Review of Agriculture, Vol 32, No 52. Economics and Statistics, 74.
Dyer G (1998): ‘Farm Size and Productivity – Sidhu S S (1974): ‘Relative Efficiency in Wheat
A New Look at the Old Debate Revisited’, Production in the Agricultural Punjab’,
Economic and Political Weekly, Review of American Journal of Agricultural Econo-
Agriculture, Vol 33, No 26. mics, 64.
Kalirajan K (1981): ‘The Economic Efficiency Sidhu, S S and C A Baanante (1979): ‘Farm Level
of Farmers Growing High Yielding Irrigated Fertilizer Demand for Mexican Wheat
Rice in India’, American Journal of Varieties in the Indian Punjab’, American
Agricultural Economics, 63. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61.
SAMEEKSHA TRUST BOOKS
Selections from Economic and Political Weekly
Money and Finance
Issues,Institutions,Policies
Edited by
Deena Khatkhate
Financial Liberalisation: A Revisionist View Deena Khatkhate • Money
and Monetary Policy in Less Developed Countries Warren L Coats Jr
and Deena Khatkhate • Financial Liberalisation: Issues and Evidence
Yoon Je Cho and Deena Khatkhate • Government Balances as a
Monetary Policy Instrument in the Less Developed Countries Anand
Chandavarkar • Fiscal-Monetary Dynamic Nexus Narendra Jadhav and
Balwant Singh • On the Inflationary Impact of Budget Deficit Mihir
Rakshit • Bank Deposits in the Indian Economy V G Pendharkar
• Interest-Price Nexus D M Nachane • Informal Credit Markets and
Black Money Shankar Acharya and Srinivasa Madhur • Interlinkage
of Formal and Informal Credit Markets in India Pradeep Srivastava •
Behaviour of Trade Credit: Its Relevance to Monetary Policy L M Bhole
• Performance of Commercial Banks since Nationalisation S L Shetty
• Monetary Policy for Independent Monetary Authority V M Dandekar
• Financial Rehabilitation of Public Sector Banks Suman K Bery.
348 pages Rs 350
Available from
ORIENT LONGMAN LIMITED
Calcutta Chennai Mumbai New Delhi Bangalore Bhubaneshwar
Ernakulam Guwahati Hyderabad Jaipur Lucknow Patna
Economic and Political Weekly May 8, 1999