PERSPECTIVES
seemingly be solved by employing com-
Difference, Division, Desi Breeds
Intuitive Economics and the Outcome
of an Operation
Milind Watve, Ojas S V
A fundamental question in
economics as well as in adaptive
evolutionary biology is when to
use difference and when to use
division in cost–benefit analysis.
At times, decisions taken to
maximise the cost–benefit ratio
can be diametrically opposite to
that to maximise the cost–benefit
difference. Common people
intuitively know when to
maximise the ratio and when to
maximise the difference. The
contrasting history of hybrid
versus “desi” breeds in agriculture
as opposed to animal husbandry
illustrates this point effectively.
Milind Watve (milind.watve@gmail.com) is a
freelance researcher and formerly taught at the
Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research (IISER), Pune, and is interested in
the evolution of human behaviour and human
social systems. Ojas S V (meetojas@gmail.com)
is with the Maharashtra Gene Bank Programme,
IISER, Pune.
28
S
“ uppose, in a business you invest
`1,000 and get `1,500 as return.
You have `500 as net profit. Sup-
pose you expand on the business by ad-
ditionally investing `1,000. Now you get
a net profit of `800 instead of `500.
Would you consider the decision of this
additional investment as a wise deci-
sion?” We raised this question in a meet-
ing of a mixed group, consisting mainly
of social workers working with farmers,
fisherfolk, pastoral, and tribal communi-
ties. We were discussing the economics
of livelihood for people dependent on
nature. Some of them said, “Yes. We will
invest `1,000 more because by doing so,
our net profit goes up.” Some of them
said, “No. This is not wise! Because,
even if net profit goes up, it is not in pro-
portion to the additional investment.
The ratio actually decreases with the
additional investment.”
Which of the answers is correct? Is it
really wise to make the additional inves-
tment or not? Both the groups certainly
used logic which was “right” in their
context. Both the groups were doing a
careful cost–benefit analysis. But, one
group was using net profit, defined as
returns minus the cost. The other was
using a ratio, defined as returns divided
by the cost. Interestingly, even within
the latter group, individuals working
with farmers appeared to think in a dif-
ferent way than individuals working
with tribal communities. For this article,
we will use the words “cost” and “benefit”
to describe the actualities of a deal, and
the words “investment” and “returns” to
refer to the perceptions and strategies of
an investor.
Although the dilemma of using differ-
ence or division, or rather when one
should use difference and division, could
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
mon sense, we believe it is a fundamental
question that requires serious thought.
Many people may not even think that it
is an important question, since business
wisdom lies in reducing costs and in-
creasing returns. Theoretically, if business
wisdom is applied in real-life situations,
both difference as well as ratio will
increase. But, this does not always work.
The above example, although very simple,
demonstrates that optimising difference
and optimising ratio can lead us to dia-
metrically opposite decisions. The ques-
tion is not only important in economics,
but also in biology. Evolutionary bio-
logists frequently worry about budgets,
where energy, time, health, longevity, or
reproductive success is the currency.
Only the ones with a profitable budget
will survive. As a result, an intuitive
sense of optimising has evolved in ani-
mals. It is unlikely that humans are an
exception to the evolved intuitive opti-
misation mechanisms. But, humans also
have conscious thinking and theorisation,
so we should seek a logical explanation
for our decisions in our conscious beliefs
and theories. So, we wanted a logical
answer to the question of when to divide
and when to subtract.
We then started scanning economics
textbooks and asking economist friends
about when to take the ratio and when
to take the difference in the cost–benefit
analysis. The economists we consulted
ranged from teachers of first-year eco-
nomics in colleges to senior economists
working as consultants in multilateral
organisations. Surprisingly, we did not
get any definitive answer. The responses
included “Use ratio;” “Use difference;”
“We always use ratios, but I don’t know
why;” “Use either, what difference does it
make?” “I don’t know;” and “Frankly
speaking, I never thought of this ques-
tion.” The theory of probability in math-
ematics begins with two simple rules
that tell us when to add probabilities and
when to multiply. We thought there
would be such simple rules that instruct
when to use difference and ratio. How-
ever, we learnt that such rules do not ex-
ist, or even if they do, most economists,
vol lV no 8 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 PERSPECTIVES

at least in our sample, do not seem to invest much more in Figure 1: Concept of Ratio Optimum versus Difference Optimum
600
know them. terms of money or efforts.
Whereas, in maximising Ymax

Benefit: grain yield at harvest

500
Use of Ratio and Difference the benefit to cost ratio, it
400
So, how does it matter whether we take is a better strategy to
difference or ratio? As we discussed fur- have a smaller invest- 300
ther in that group, some inquisitive indi- ment per unit, but to in-
200
viduals asked. “Are we limited to only crease the number of
one business? What if we start a second units. In simple words, 100
unit of the same business and invest when there is one invest- ropt dopt
0
another `1,000 in it, instead of going ment opportunity, it is 0 100 200 300 400
Cost: agricultural inputs
from `1,000 to `2,000 in the same unit? desirable to extract the In the figure, the long-dashed line has slope = 1, where benefit is equal to cost.
With two independent units of the same maximum output from The short-dashed line is a tangent to the curve. Difference optimum (dopt) is the
point of optimum inputs by the difference model, where the difference between
business, we will earn `3,000 with an the unit, even at a higher the curve and the break-even line is maximum. Ratio optimum (ropt) is the point
investment of `2,000. This is better than cost. Whereas, if many of optimum inputs by the ratio model, where a tangent drawn from the origin
touches the curve. The corresponding Y coordinates represent optimum returns
earning `2,800 from `2,000. This turned replicates of the unit are by the respective models. It can be appreciated that the ratio optimum is strongly
out to be the key question, and it gives a possible, it is desirable to dependent on the overhead cost. As the overhead cost increases, the difference
between the ratio optimum and difference optimum diminishes, but as long as there
simple answer to the fundamental ques- invest less per unit, but is profitability, the difference optimum always lies to the right of the ratio optimum.
tion as well. If you have multiple invest- increase the number of Source: Conceptual diagram, no real data.
ment opportunities, then go by the ratio, units. How much to invest in a unit de- In the case of Indian agriculture, a
and if you have a single opportunity or pends on the overhead costs too. With farmer most commonly has only one
your possible investment opportunities greater overhead costs of a unit, one needs investment opportunity: their own land.
are almost saturated, then you should go to invest much more in the unit. The Therefore, it is natural to use a differ-
by the difference. The same can be dem- higher the overhead investment, the lower ence model and extract maximum out-
onstrated by a more rigorous mathemat- the difference between ratio optimum put, even at a higher cost. On the other
ical proof given in Box 1. and difference optimum. The invest- hand, in the case of livestock in the Indian
A simple generalisation is that when- ment still remains lower in ratio optimi- context, more investment opportunities
ever a law of diminishing returns applies sation than in difference optimisation. (number of animals) are available, so
and there is an overhead cost in the So, the choice of model (whether to use the natural tendency should be to invest
endeavour, the difference optimum is difference model or ratio model) and the little per animal, but let the number of
typically much to the right of the ratio optimum investment per unit depends animals increase on their own.
optimum (Box 1 and Figure 1). Thus, to upon how many investment opportunities Domesticated herbivores in India typi-
maximise net benefit, it is necessary to you have and the overhead cost. cally grazed on common pasture lands
(Roy 1997). Therefore, keepers have little
Box 1: Mathematics of Difference versus Division overhead as well as running costs. In a
If we take the example of a farm, there is an overhead cost (C0), involving the cost of land, instruments and land ratio model, when the denominator is
preparation. This overhead cost is a baseline investment that yields no returns. Then comes recurring costs, like cost
of seeds/saplings, manure, fertilisers, pesticides and labour with which the produce increases linearly or non-linearly. near zero, the ratio is always high and,
There is an upper limit on the productivity per unit area of any crop (Ymax), and therefore, a saturation curve is the best therefore, there is no need to worry so
simple representation of the productivity curve. This is well known as the law of diminishing returns (Samuelson and
Nordhaus 2001: 110) (Figure 1).
much about the productivity of an indi-
We assume a baseline model in which the returns increase in a saturation curve beginning with an X-intercept vidual animal. In the context of a typical
equivalent to the overhead costs. A saturation curve is typically used in optimisation models where some limiting
Western dairy farming model, where
factor decides the upper limit that cannot be exceeded. The curve can be captured by a simple mathematical
expression, which is a modified version of the Michaelis–Menten equation there are private ranches, a ranch becomes
Y=
Ymax (C–C0)
the unit, and since the owner has a sin-
K + (C – C0)
In this equation, Ymax is the maximum possible returns, C is the total cost, C0 is the overhead cost and K is a half gle unit, there would be an attempt to
saturation constant ignoring the overheads. K will be decided by the default agricultural environment and the increase the net productivity of the unit
specific crop under consideration. Since the relation between investment and returns is a saturating one, it is possible
to ask, “what are the optimum inputs in agricultural practices that can maximise the benefit to cost ratio or their
even at a higher investment. In this
difference?” The benefit to cost ratio is maximum where a straight line starting from the origin becomes tangential to model, on the one hand, investment
the curve (Figure 1). The net benefit (returns–cost) is maximised where the vertical distance between the curve and
on owning the huge piece of ranch
the break–even line (returns = cost) is maximum. This happens where the slope of the curve becomes exactly equal
to unity. increases the overheads, making high
Mathematically, (see Watve et al 2016 for a complete solution) the optimum investment at which the ratio becomes productivity necessary. On the other
maximum can be obtained by taking the derivative of the ratio with respect to the cost and finding the conditions
at which the derivative equals zero. This condition is satisfied when C = C0 +  C0 K . Thus, in this model, optimum cost hand, long-term assured ownership is a
is nonlinearly dependent on both K and C0, but does not depend on Ymax. The optimum cost for getting maximum difference good motivation for worrying about sus-
can be obtained similarly, which turns out to be C = C0 +  K.Ymax – K. In this model, as opposed to the ratio model, the
optimum depends nonlinearly on Ymax and K but linearly on C0 . This shows that the factors that decide the ratio
tainability. Therefore, there is no option
optimum are not the same as the factors that decide the difference optimum. Therefore, choosing the right model in but to increase the investment per animal,
the right context is important. A wrong choice can lead to misleading inferences. In any economic consideration, it is
at the same time, keeping the number of
necessary to have clarity about whether to use difference or ratio.
animals limited.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW FEBRUARY 22, 2020 vol lV no 8 29
PERSPECTIVES
In that context, cattle are more like a
“crop” and land is a limiting factor. This
sets the ground for a difference model to
work in which the investment as well as
productivity goes up. Thus, the economics
of modern Western dairy farming and
traditional cattle keeping is fundamen-
tally different, and therefore, the breeds
and characteristics of animals support-
ing the two economic models are also
fundamentally different. In a ratio model
that is typical of traditional Indian ani-
mal keeping, people will tend to select
animals requiring near zero inputs with-
out worrying much about their produc-
tivity. In the modern Western private
ranching system, there would be a selec-
tion for high-productivity animals even
if they require greater inputs. The differ-
ence in productivity in different varieties
of animals originates in the selection
operating on these animals. Animals
bred for generations in the difference
model become more productive, and
those under the ratio model become more
hardy and resilient, but less productive.
Innate and Intuitive Economics
Evolutionary ecologists have shown that
even the so-called “dumb” or “unintelli-
gent” animals with tiny brains make
very careful cost–benefit judgments. For
example, a parasitoid wasp typically lays
eggs on the caterpillar of a host insect.
The number of eggs to be laid on a given
caterpillar is a complex investment deci-
sion. The optimum egg investment per
caterpillar unit depends upon a number
of factors, including the expected remai-
ning lifespan of the female, the residual
egg-laying capacity, the probability of
finding more host caterpillars, whether a
caterpillar found already has eggs laid by
a competing female, and so on. Mathe-
matical ecologists have shown that wasp
females are able to take a complex
economic decision (Heimpel et al 1996:
2410–20).
Considering the astonishing innate
mathematical ability of a wasp, it should
not be surprising that even illiterate
humans do take wise economic decisions
even when they have not studied econom-
ics formally. Humans appear to make com-
plex cost–benefit analysis while making
several decisions where the currency
30
need not always be money. Time, labour,
energy, sex, reproductive success, sur-
vival, or social status work as currencies
in human intuitive economic calculations
(McNamara and Houston 1986: 358–78),
but it is beyond doubt that using cost–
benefit optimisation is an innate ten-
dency of animals (Parker and Smith 1990:
27–33; Smith and Winterhalder 1992:
25–60) and that legacy continues in
humans. Formal education is not a pri-
mary requirement for making such com-
plex calculations. While doing formal
economics, some of the currencies can be
put in numbers as equivalents of money,
whereas for other currencies, it is diffi-
cult to set up an equivalence with money.
Herein lies the difference between intui-
tive economics and formal economics.
Nevertheless, the fundamental princi-
ples of cost–benefit analysis, including
the above stated rule about ratio versus
difference, need not be different.
If asked directly, farmers do not know
what a difference model is and what a
ratio model is, but they appear to use the
right model in the right context. In
another study published earlier (Bayani
et al 2016), we tested the differential
predictions of the difference versus ratio
models on a set of farmers (Watve et al
2016: 861–67). The results showed very
clearly that farmers unanimously used
the difference model. Thus, the farmers
appeared to have an intuitive knowledge
of some principles of economics, which
our educated economists have not yet
clearly figured out.
Hybrid Crops vs Crossbred Cows
The green revolution entered India in
the late 1960s. It was brought in by gov-
ernment efforts, with the help of vision-
ary scientists. The government whole-
heartedly promoted the use of hybrid
seeds, chemical pesticides, and fertilis-
ers, bringing about changes in tradition-
al farming practices. The new agricul-
tural practices needed more investment
not only in purchasing hybrid seeds, but
also for chemical fertilisers, pesticides,
and irrigation. Hybrid or high-yielding
varieties of seeds certainly required
more care, since they were more suscep-
tible to climatic variation as well as dis-
eases and pests. Within a decade, almost
FEBRUARY 22, 2020
the entire country changed agricultural
practices. Individual farmers invested
more in order to get more returns, al-
though the benefit to cost ratio might
have actually declined. It should also
be noted that although there were many
incentives and promotional schemes
launched by the government, nothing was
made mandatory. The farmers largely
accepted the green revolution in a short
span of time.
More recent is the specific case of
Bt cotton. India is the world’s largest
cotton producing country (Statista 2019).
Bt cotton was introduced in 2002, and
it took a few years to be known. Soon,
Bt cotton percentage in terms of produc-
tion area boomed up from 6% in 2004–05
to 81% in 2009–10. In less than eight
years, 93% cotton farmers started using
Bt cotton (ISAAA 2014). The change was
so rapid that non-Bt cotton seeds were
practically out of the market, and many
indigenous varieties were threatened to
extinction (Kumarnath 2016). More gen-
erally, hybrid or high-yielding varieties
have replaced indigenous varieties, and
a special drive is needed to conserve
indigenous varieties.
In contrast, if we see the case of live-
stock, Operation Flood, launched in 1972,
was a project of India’s National Dairy
Development Board (NDDB), which was
the world’s biggest dairy development
programme. High milch foreign breeds
were introduced in the cattle population.
Programmes like artificial insemination
(AI) were launched, with substantial
thrust from government and non-gov-
ernmental agencies. Concerned agen-
cies worked with targets and tried to
reach out to every doorstep to insemi-
nate local cows with high-quality semen
(NDDB 2015). Furthermore, there were
moves to improve feed, fodder and vet-
erinary services. But, the efforts precede
Operation Flood since even before Ope-
ration Flood, there were active efforts to
eradicate and replace indigenous cattle.
For example, in Kerala, castration of lo-
cal bulls was made mandatory under the
Kerala Livestock Improvement Act of
1961. Under this act, any bull of an indig-
enous breed reaching sexual maturity
had to be castrated and a task force set up
to implement the castration operations
vol lV no 8 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

Figure 2: Time Trends in Terms of Percentage of Total Area/Population of Bt
Cotton and Cross-bred Cattle
100
80
60
Percentage
40
20
0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Source: 19th Livestock Census 2012: All India Report and ISAAA (2014).
at a mass scale. Nothing comparable to
this was ever done for Bt cotton or any
high-yielding crop variety. Even doorstep-
level facilitation and persuasion was
never needed for the green revolution.
In spite of all such efforts, the trend in
the growth of exotic/crossbred cattle re-
mained poor, in contrast with the trends
in high-yielding crop varieties (Figure 2).
Although there has been a steady
decline in indigenous cattle percentage
and a steady increase in exotic/hybrid
cattle, the percentage share of exotic/
crossbreed cattle has increased only by
14% in two decades (from 1992 to 2012).
In comparison with the 93% spread of Bt
cotton in eight years, this increase is
meagre. Particularly notable is the vast
majority of the so-called “non-descript”
cattle (DAHD 2012). There have been
excellent indigenous cattle breeds, such
as gir, that are high-yielding, but even
they were never abundant across the
country. Majority of the population was
happy with the low-yielding one, but
self-sustaining hardy cattle that needed
little care and survived droughts, dis-
eases, and parasites (Mazoomdaar 2013).
These animals’ performance was poor if
seen through the difference model, but
excellent by the ratio model because the
investment needed was negligible.
Thus, there is a stark contrast between
people’s response to high-yielding crop
varieties and high-yielding animal breeds.
They seem to have accepted the former
in a short time, but have resisted the latter
even after the option has existed for a
long time. We feel that the difference
lies in the economic model of optimisa-
tion used. With the difference model
Economic & Political Weekly EPW FEBRUARY 22, 2020
PERSPECTIVES
Figure 3: Comparative Cost–Benefit of Cattle Farmer and Dairy
70
Benefit (Milk production/ procurement)
Bt cotton Curve of farmer
60
50
Benefit dairy Curve of dairy
40
Benefit farmer
30
20
Cross-bred cows
10
Ropt farmer Ropt dairy
2010 2015 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cost
Source: Conceptual diagram, no real data.
predominating agricultural economics, which is ecologically sound (Palekar
they are ready to invest more money and 2007). We raise no doubts about the
efforts and go for higher yields. But, ecological and sustainability-related mer-
with animals, they are happier with its of zero-budget agriculture. But, the
small yields coming out of near zero in- response from the farmer community to
vestment because they are using a ratio this model so far is extremely limited.
model. This choice of the model is com- Out of the 140 million hectares (ha) of
pletely innate and intuitive. Nobody did agricultural land in India (Directorate of
any calculations consciously. Such calcu- Economics and Statistics 2014: 305), farm-
lations must be as natural and built-in as ers have committed to organic farming
the wasp optimising her egg investment. in only 0.51 million ha (PoliticalTruth
Now, it is high time that formal econo- 2016). The reason is likely to be that the
mics recognises the innate economic promoters are trying to promote ratio
models of people. optimisation (Misra 2007), whereas the
farmers’ community has a difference
Ratio Model in Agriculture model in their intuitive calculation. It
The ratio model can be appropriate for would be necessary for the promotion of
agriculture under a set of conditions. In organic farming to rework its economics
slash-and-burn agriculture, where new and see how it performs in a difference
land can be brought under cultivation, model. If Misra’s (2007) claim is correct,
that is, new investment opportunities both the ratio and difference models
can be created, a ratio model will work could be more favourable in “spiritual”
better. Also, in a society that is free to agriculture. But, unless it is propagated
expand the agricultural land, a ratio model by projecting its economic superiority by
is appropriate. We see this difference in the difference model, farmers are unlikely
the history of modern agriculture too. In to adopt it on a large scale.
the 1960s, the green revolution took
quick and firm roots in India, but it did When Two Optima Contradict
not succeed in much of Africa, although The contrasting example comes from
its promotion was attempted (Pingali the rapidly rising dairy industry. When a
2012: 12,305). For the 1960s population- dairy company or cooperative is estab-
to-land ratio in much of Africa, people lished, it has invested substantial amounts
could rely on the ratio model and were into overhead costs like land, establish-
not interested in difference optimisation. ment cost, machinery, storage, and sup-
As the population grew, and there was a ply chains. Although the dairy industry
clear demarcation of agricultural lands might still be using the ratio model, a
and land saturation, the difference model rise in overheads shifts the optimum to
started gradually taking over, and the the right. The dairy unit has certain other
response to the green revolution improved. limitations. It can take raw material from
Today, we see substantial and sincere several cattle or buffalo owners. But,
efforts to promote zero-budget agriculture, since milk is highly perishable, there is a
vol lV no 8 31
PERSPECTIVES
Figure 4: Time Trends in Organised Dairy Sector and Cross-bred Cattle
30
Milk to organised sector
20
Percentage
10
0 Himachal Pradesh
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
Source: 19th Livestock Report and Sharma et al (2002).
limit to the area from which it can trans-
port raw milk. Within this area, they need
to maximise the incoming flow. There-
fore, the industry is interested in a higher
investment and higher returns model.
This goes in a subtle conflict with the
animal owners. The optimum for the in-
dustry is far to the right than the optimum
for animal keepers (Figure 3, p 31). As a
result, the industry would have to take
special efforts to motivate people to
increase their investment per animal and
improve the returns per animal. For this,
they need to give incentives, attractive
offers, free veterinary services, animal
insurance, assured market or some other
means to motivate them. Only with such
efforts, the high-yielding varieties can be
sustainable by people’s intuitive economics.
As a result, in the milk catchment area
of large dairy units, high-yielding breeds
are expected to be better accepted by
people. In the absence of incentives and
active promotion by organised dairy age-
ncies, people are unlikely to accept and
maintain these varieties on a mass scale
and over a long time. This prediction of
the hypothesis matches with the statisti-
cal trend. The spread of cross-bred var-
ieties closely follow the rise in the dairy
industry (Figure 4).
Dairy Industry and Breed Selection
The organised sector of the Indian dairy
industry started growing post-independ-
ence, and in the early 1960s, the share
of the organised sector in total milk
procurement was only 3.7%. By the mid-
1990s, it reached 12% (Sharma et al
2002). By 2008, the share of organised
milk production was 23.39%, and by
2015, it was 26.26%. The pattern of this
32
Figure 5: Correlation between Statewise Milk Processing Capacity of Organised
Dairy Sector and the Number of Artificial Inseminations in the State
25,000
(thousands)
20,000
thousands)
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
AI Cases (in cases
15,000
Andhra Pradesh
Artificial Insemination
Cross-bred cows Karnataka Maharashtra
10,000
Punjab
Kerala
West Bengal Haryana Gujarat
5,000
Odisha Madhya Pradesh
0
2000 2010 2020 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Organised sector capacity (million litres)
Source: Sharma et al (2002).
rise is closely followed by the pattern which would help the planning of large-
of the number of cross-bred cattle re- scale operations in the right direction
flecting acceptance of cross-breed cattle and in the most effective way.
by people. Although the jersey cow was This article is neither to support gene-
introduced in India long ago in 1856 tically modified (GM) crops, nor to oppose
(Chako 1994), systematic breeding pro- better animal husbandry practices. It
grammes began only in the 1960s. demonstrates how the underlying innate–
Thereon, it followed the growth curve intuitive economic model used by ordi-
of the organised dairy sector very faith- nary people dominates the outcome. For
fully. Even geographically, the statewise promoting any new technology or prac-
success of artificial insemination pro- tice on a nationwide scale, it is necessary
gramme shows a good positive correlation to understand people’s economics with-
(r = 0.64, p = 0.018) with the number of out which huge efforts can turn unpro-
organised sector units and the total ductive. The whole motive of this analysis
capacity (Figure 5). The correlation re- is to understand how microeconomics at
mains significant even after correcting the farmers’ level affect trends in a big-
for the area of the state. Thus, much of ger picture. It is surprising that such an
the spread of high-yielding cattle is cater- analysis has not been the centre of
ing to the economic interest of the organ- thinking in this field. Huge amounts of
ised dairy industry rather than the econo- efforts have gone into developing better
mic interest of individual cattle keepers. breeds, sperm banks, artificial insemi-
Our emphasis on the use of ratio nation techniques, and the like. A num-
versus difference models of intuitive ber of excuses are given to explain the
economics does not mean that other relative failure of cattle-breed improve-
factors, such as government policies, ment. The predominant excuses include
market infrastructure, advertising and the relatively high care required for
socio-political–cultural acceptance do cross-bred cows, the need for continued
not play any role in the growth and ac- cross-breeding programme since the
ceptance of high-yielding varieties. But, quality is not maintained in subsequent
it gives the right platform on which the generations and the lack of awareness
effects of every factors can be rightly and education in people (Sainath 2012;
mapped. If planning is based on the ap- Ramdas and Ghotge 2006). Interestingly,
propriate economic model, the imple- all of these factors were applicable to hy-
mentation is more likely to be effective. brid crops as well, but they did not prevent
their acceptance and spread (Koshy 2011).
Conclusions It is necessary to differentiate between
For any microeconomic model, it is nec- reasons and justification/excuses, which
essary to have clarity about whether one can be revealed only through insightful,
should use a ratio model or a difference evolutionary socio-economic investiga-
model. People appear to use the two tion. Advancement in the field of tech-
models discriminately and appropriately. nology needs to be accompanied by an
Formal economics needs to realise this, equally intensive, scientific, unbiased and
FEBRUARY 22, 2020 vol lV no 8 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 PERSPECTIVES

insightful research in peoples’ behaviour
for a socially important policy to be suc-
cessfully implemented over a large pop-
ulation like ours.
References
Bayani A, D Tiwade, A Dongre, A Dongre, R Phatak
and M Watve (2016): “Assessment of Crop
Damage by Protected Wild Mammalian Herbi-
vores on the Western Boundary of Tadoba-
Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), Central India,”
PLOS One, 19 April, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.
0153854.
Chako, C T (1994): “Development of Sunandhini
Cattle in India,” World Animal Review, Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, viewed on 14 July 2019, http://www.
fao.org/docrep/t4650t/t4650t0v.htm.
DAHD (2012): “19th Livestock Census 2012: All
India Report,” Department of Animal Hus-
bandry Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Ag-
riculture, Government of India, New Delhi,
viewed on 14 July 2019, http://dahd.nic.in/
sites/default/filess/ Livestock%20%205_0.pdf.
— (2013): “Breeding Survey Book: Estimated
Livestock Population Breed-wise: Based on
Breed Survey 2013,” Animal Husbandry Statis-
tics Division, Government of India, New Delhi.
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2014):
“Agricultural Statistics at a Glance (various
issues),” Department of Agriculture and Coop-
eration, Ministry of Agriculture, Government
of India, New Delhi, viewed on 14 July 2019,
https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/Agricultural-
Statistics-At-Glance2014.pdf.
Heimpel, G E, J A Rosenheim and M Mangel
(1996): “Egg Limitation, Host Quality and Dy-
namic Behaviour by a Parasitoid in the Field,”
Ecology, Vol 77, No 8, pp 2410–20.
ISAAA (2014): “Global Status of Commercialised
Biotech/GM Crops: 2014,” Brief 49, International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Ap-
plications, viewed on 14 July 2019, https://
isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/
default.asp.
Koshy, J (2011): “How India Became a Bt Cotton
Country,” Livemint, 27 July, viewed on 28 July
2019, https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/ NZID-
je22uiFUoskfs9FD5M/How-India-became-a-
Bt-Cotton-country.html.
Kumarnath, K (2016): “Bt Cotton: How It Flowered
and Is Losing Lustre Now,” Hindu BusinessLine,
22 March, viewed on 28 July 2019, https://
www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/ag-
ri-business/bt-cotton-how-it-flowered-and-is-
losing-lustre-now/article8386090.ece.
Mazoomdaar, J (2013): “The Desi Cow: Almost Ex-
tinct,” Tehelka, Vol 10, No 5, viewed on 28 July
2019, http://old.tehelka.com/the-desi-cow-al-
most-extinct/.
McNamara, J M and A I Houston (1986): “The Com-
mon Currency for Behavioural Decisions,”
American Naturalist, Vol 127, No 3, pp 358–78.
Misra, S S (2007): “Punjab’s Spiritual Farming,”
Down to Earth, 30 November, viewed on 28
July 2019, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/
coverage/punjabs-spiritual-farming-6918.
NDDB (2015): “Operation Flood,” National Dairy
Development Board, viewed on 29 December
2016, http://www.nddb.org/about/genesis/flood.
Palekar, S (2007): The Techniques of Spiritual Farm-
ing, Amaravati, Maharashtra: Vedic Books.
Parker, G A and J M Smith (1990): “Optimality The-
ory in Evolutionary Biology,” Nature, Vol 348,
1 November, pp 27–33, doi: 10.1038/348027a0.
Pingali, P L (2012): “Green Revolution: Impacts,
Limits and the Path Ahead,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, Vol 109, No 31, July, pp 12302–08.
PoliticalTruth (2016): “Organic Farming: India
World’s Third Highest Producer of Organic
Products,” 13 February, viewed on 28 July 2019,
https://politicaltruth.wordpress.com/2016/02/.
Ramdas, S R and N S Ghotge (2006): “India’s Live-
stock Economy: The Forsaken Dry Lands,”
Seminar, Vol 564, August, viewed on 28 July
2019, http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/
564/564_s_r_ramdas_&_n_s_ghotge.htm# top.
Roy, Deb R (1997): “Communal Grazing Lands and
Their Importance in India and Some Other
Asian Countries,” Session 18, Communal Grazing
Lands, International Grassland Congress,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Sainath, P (2012): “Cattle Class: Native vs Exotic,”
Hindu, 6 January, viewed on 28 July 2019,
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col-
umns/sainath/Cattle-class-native-vs-exotic/
article13355009.ece.
Samuelson, P and W Nordhaus (2001): Microeco-
nomics (17th edition), Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Sharma, V, R V Singh, S Staal and C Delgado
(2002): “Critical Issues for Poor People in the
Indian Dairy Sector on the Threshold of a New
Era,” June: Phase I of an IFPRI–FAO project en-
titled “Livestock Industrialisation, Trade and
Social-Health-Environment Impacts in Devel-
oping Countries,” viewed on 3 January 2017,
http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/LEAD/X6115E/
x6115e0b.htm.
Smith, E A and B Winterhalder (1992): “Natural
Selection and Decision Making: Some Funda-
mental Principles,” Evolutionary Ecology and
Human Behavior, E A Smith (ed), New York: Al-
dine de Gruyter, pp 25–60.
Statista (2019): “Cotton Production by Country
Worldwide in 2017/2018,” viewed on 5 July 2019,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263055/
cotton-production-worldwide-by-top-countries.
Trading Economics (2016): “Agricultural Irrigated
Land (% of Total Agricultural Land) in India,”
viewed on 5 January 2017, http://www.trading-
economics.com/india/agricultural-irrigated-
land-percent-of-total-agricultural-land-wb-da-
ta.html.
Watve, M, A Bayani and S Ghosh (2016): “Crop
Damage by Wild Herbivores: Insights Obtained
from Optimisation Models,” Current Science,
Vol 111, No 5, pp 861–67.

Appeal for Donations to the Corpus of the Sameeksha Trust

This is an appeal to the subscribers, contributors, advertisers and well-wishers of Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), published by
Sameeksha Trust, a public charitable trust registered with the office of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, India. EPW has completed
50 years of publications. We have become what we are at present because of your support and goodwill. Week after week, EPW publishes
at least 80,000 words by a wide range of writers: veteran and young scholars, senior journalists and public commentators, political and
social activists; elected representatives of the people, policy practitioners, and concerned citizens.
In order to meet new editorial challenges, confront technological changes, provide adequate remuneration to our employees and contributors,
enhance our reputation and grow in stature and scale while zealously maintaining our editorial independence and autonomy, we seek your
support. Given the growing uncertainty in flows of advertising income and the fast-changing nature of publishing, it is our endeavour to
increase interest income by enlarging the corpus of the Sameeksha Trust. We seek active support from both institutions and individuals in
this endeavour.
Do donate to the corpus of the Sameeksha Trust. The Sameeksha Trust, which owns EPW and the EPW Research Foundation, is
a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Donations to Sameeksha Trust enjoy tax exemption under
Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We welcome donations to the corpus not less than Rs 1,000 per individual. Donations in foreign
currency and donations from political parties are not accepted. We welcome donations from non-resident Indians (NRIs) and persons of
Indian origin (PIOs), but only in Indian currency and through regular banking channels. All donors must provide details of their Permanent
Account Number (PAN) and a covering letter, stating that this donation is to the corpus of the Sameeksha Trust. Please note that a covering
letter and photocopy of the PAN card is mandatory.
If you need more information on how to support us, please email us at edit@epw.in and we shall be happy to provide you with details.
— From the Trustees of Sameeksha Trust and the Editor of EPW

Economic & Political Weekly EPW FEBRUARY 22, 2020 vol lV no 8 33