• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Explanatory notes
 The variables
 The sources
 Location of printed sources
 Location of data
 Sources of data on the conditions...
 A note on data processing...
 A note on land registry in Central...
 The SIECA project list of...






Title: A User's inventory of data sources on rural poverty in Central America
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055290/00001
 Material Information
Title: A User's inventory of data sources on rural poverty in Central America
Physical Description: 104, 8 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Dommen, Arthur J.
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: S.l
Publication Date: 1976]
 Subjects
Subject: Rural conditions -- Central America   ( ltcsh )
Poverty -- Central America   ( ltcsh )
Bibliography -- Central America   ( ltcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Arthur J. Dommen.
General Note: On title page: Prepared for the Agency for International Development under Contract No. otr-147-6060.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055290
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 24278309

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Explanatory notes
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    The variables
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    The sources
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Location of printed sources
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
    Location of data
        Page 94
        Page 95
    Sources of data on the conditions of estate and plantation workers
        Page 96
        Page 97
    A note on data processing facilities
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
    A note on land registry in Central America
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
    The SIECA project list of variables
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
Full Text
















A USER'S INVENTORY OF DATA SOURCES

ON RURAL POVERTY IN CENTRAL AMERICA











Arthur J. Dommen
Agricultural Economist


Prepared for
the Agency for International Development
under Contract No. otr-147-6060

















"The only thing they Cthe local politicians] know
about campesinos is what they see when they ride by in
their big cars."
---A Honduran peasant woman (196, p. 133)




"It's hard doing farm surveys. You have to walk "
---Dr. Damon Boynton, interview, Turrialba














TABLE OF CONTENTS





I Introduction Page 1
II Explanatory Notes 6
III The Variables 14
IV The Sources 32
V Location of Printed Sources 91
VI Location of Data 94
VII Sources of Data on the Conditions
of Estate and Plantation Workers 96
VIII A Note on Data Processing Facilities 98
IX A Note on Land Registry in Central America 101
X The SIECA Project List of Variables 104


























I

INTRODUCTION












The inventory of data sources that follows is the product

of a trip through Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras,

and Guatemala from February 13 to March 24, 1976. The object of

the trip, broadly put, was to find out what we know about the

conditions of life of the rural poor---their income, their

work, their use of land, their diet, their schooling, their

health, their life expectancy, and so forth. There was no

expectation of finding one source of information about all

these things, for none exists. Nevertheless, various people

in their own ways have been investigating one or more of these

things and their relationship to each other;' the sum total

of their research is impressive. A great work of analysis

remains to be done, and it is desirable that the generation

of data, facilitated by modern means, not be allowed to

outrun the work of analysis.

The assignment conjured up at the outset the question:

Who are the rural poor? Perhaps the most easily conjured-up

vision is of the "subsistence farmer" eking out a living for

himself and his family from a milpa on a steep hillside.

Indeed, he is part of the picture. His way of life has not

changed much from that of his Classical Maya ancestors, who

proceeded in the following steps in their cycle of cultivation

of corn:









1. Localization of the field;
2. cleaning out of the underbrush;
3. cutting down of the trees;
4. burning of the clearing;
5. sowing the seed;
6. looking after the field;
7. cutting weeds in the field;
8. bending of the stems (in some places);
9. harvesting the early corn (in the ear);
10. harvesting the late corn;
11. putting the corn in storage (and shelling in some places);
12. distribution to family, relatives, and community.

The same description of the cycle of crop and occupation

could be applied in many places of Central America today. But

other groups of people as well have come to be included in the

picture of what we talk of as the rural poor. Some are renters

of land facing rising land values and rents. Others are share-

croppers facing eviction as agrarian relations change. Some are

wage laborers on cotton and sugar cane estates. How well off

are they? Some potentially illuminating research is under way,

for instance, to test the hypothesis that the wage worker's

children have a more adequate diet than the "subsistence

farmer's."

John Becker, of USAID/Nicaragua, one of the many people

on my trip with whom I discussed the problem of rural poverty,

suggested that the problem of escaping from the vicious circle

of poverty, insofar as the small farmer is concerned, be looked

at in terms of offering him a choice which he now does not

have. The idea is an interesting one, I think. The small farmer

is constrained by his low ability to bear risk to put more than

an optimum proportion of his land, labor and other resources

into growing corn and beans, the staple crops of "subsistence

agriculture."










In this view, helping the farmer to break out of the

vicious circle would involve widening his choice of alter-

natives, allowing him to vary his cropping pattern from

the large amount of corn and beans he has been forced to

plant because of his predicament. Such widening of choice

might be achieved by making the resources at his disposal

more productive, or by making new resources available to him

(new plant technology, a government grain stabilization scheme,

etc.). This view is entirely consistent with recent theoretical

discussions which have tended to look at the "subsistence

farmer's" choices in terms of a problem of risk alleviation

in the face of severe penalties attached to the wrong decisions.

The collection and analysis of data on the rural poor

may help us to compensate for the advantage of long experience

which is, after all, the exclusive possession of the "subsistence

farmer" and the other members of the rural poor. With them, we

may achieve some understanding. The banality "The poor are always

with us" applies here, too. The historical perspective afforded

by works like David Browning's study of man and land in El

Salvador (originally published in English, and now available in

a Spanish translation published by an enlightened Ministry of

Education, San Salvador) help us better to understand the task

confronting men in air conditioned offices in noisy, crowded,

and polluted metropolises as they attempt to come to grips

with land tenure, servitudes, technology, custom, and other

legacies of the not-so-distant past.









This report contains a short note on the methodology

followed in compiling the inventory, then the inventory

itself, followed by brief notes on sources of data on

conditions of estate and plantation workers .not otherwise

included, land registry, data processing capabilities in

the Central American countries, and a recent attempt by

SIECA to construct a profile of rural man which has in-

volved as its first step a review of the data sources

rather similar to my own effort.

I am grateful for assistance rendered and exchanges

of views in the course of my trip on the part of the many

people with whom I talked.














IMedardo Mejia, Historia de Honduras. I: Sociedad Primitiva
Precolombina Maya-Tolteca (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Andrade,
1969), p. 83.



























EXPLANATORY NOTES













What follows is an inventory intended for users of

data on the rural poor of Central America. I have chosen to

arrange it by variables rather than by sources or their

type (fully cognizant of the fact that in doing so I am

leaving myself open to criticism of the necessary choice

of certain variables for inclusion, leaving others out)

for the following reasons: (1) I think it is more functional

from the user's point of view; (2) It provides a concise way

of conveying a rather large quantity of diverse information

with a maximum of understandability; and (3) the method

would seem to be susceptible of application to any country

or group of countries, and can easily be computerized if

judged necessary. Accordingly, in this inventory the

variables precede the sources.

None of these variables is intended to be a measure of

the condition of rural poverty in and of itself, obviously.

While knowing the distance a farm is located from the nearest

road may tell us something about the likelihood the family's

children go to school (and therefore something about the whole

nexus of conditions that ensue from education or lack of it),

there may be other more important factors at work in the

situation. A knowledge of rural poverty must flow from some

combination of the variables.

In general, I have tried to stay as close as possible

to defining the variables in their simplest form. Since,

however, efficiencies are to be gained from combining "crude"








variables into more meaningful ones based on functional
relationships, I have made this combination in some cases.

For instance, data on home consumption of product by product

by size category of operational holding (for which we need

"crude" data on at least two variables) tells us a bit more

about well-being of a population than simply home consumption

of product per operational holding. Similar observations can

be made about food purchases by level of income rather

than simply by household, and many other such pairs.

Some of these variables in "crude" form can be used to

derive a large number of functional variables (e.g. the

cropping pattern variable, properly measured, can give us the

percentage of cultivated land under "subsistence" and cash

crops, another useful bit of information), so there is a

trade-off here. I have attempted to strike a middle course,

neither losing many "crude" variables nor cluttering up the

inventory with many derived variables of few entries each.

It is a singular paradox that while the ultimate usefulness

of this inventory must depend on the deciphering-of cause and

effect relationships among the variables, great care must be

used in attributing cause and effect to the variables listed

in isolation. For instance, a rise in the incidence of

squatting is not necessarily an indication of a deterioration

in social relations, a driving-down to subsistence, a rise in

the scale of poverty. For example, in Costa Rica in recent years

squatters have come in to lands owned by the banana companies.










There, they often grow vegetables and sell them to the

workers on the banana plantations. Squatting is accepted

in Costa Rica as the consequence it is of the difficulty of

registering land titles legally by individuals. As this

example shows, there are several benefits from this process:

(1) transfer of use of land from growing bananas for export

to growing fresh vegetables in an area of vegetable scarcity;

(2) income generation of benefit to otherwise landless

families; and (3) improvement in the nutritional status of

the banana workers who use part of their salaries to

purchase fresh vegetables. Similarly, a rise in the average

wage for agricultural labor would not be interpreted as an

improvement in the rural poverty situation if it coincides with

a sharp reduction in the number of available jobs.

Data relating to observations made of a single primary

unit (e.g. one household) have been excluded from this listing.

An inventory of data sources, to be useful, must not simply

be a listing of bibliographic or word-of-mouth references, but

should be the end product of a careful inspection of data

sources for their value. In the inventory which follows I have

tried to list only data sources with which I was able, in my

all too brief visits to the countries, to familiarize myself

personally. I was thus able to weed out references that turned

out on inspection to have little real value to the investigator.

This procedure has undoubtedly cost me a number of references

that might be useful and I express my regret at this situation,

unavoidable in the circumstances.







10.


This is an inventory of data sources on rural poverty.

The conditions and problems of the urban poor may have dif-

ferent manifestations from those of the rural poor, but as

long as governments of the region pursue policies whose end

result is the throwing off of the land of agricultural laborers

(either due to unthinking subsidization of rapid mechanization

or due to laws aimed at converting so-called "feudal" arrange-

ments of provision of meals or loan of plots of land for

private cultivation in part or whole payment of work to an

all-cash basis ) we can safely say that the root problem facing

the poor in these countries is the same, and no matter what one

does to make the urban poor less poor there will always be more

of them, given the high rates of increase of the rural poor

and the attractions of moving to the cities.

The inventory does not include studies criticizing the

methodology of data generation, although some studies along

this line are interesting in themselves.2

In the course of my trip I came across many persons, and

many persons who know of many other persons, who affirmed they

were doing research, to complete their thesis or in some other

connection, in the field of rural poverty. Alas, it was not

possible to obtain the details of data collection involved

in all these efforts, no matter how worthy they seemed. Thus

I have, with a single exception, avoided listing theses in

process, giving only words of encouragement to their authors.









11.

Furthermore, users are warned to take all references

to surveys not actually completed with the usual caution.

Currency of all such plans and projects is as of the date of my

visit to the source. Surveys are notably subject to the whims

of their supervisors and committees of one kind and another.

In one instance the relevant questionnaire underwent substantive

change between the time of my interview with the man responsible

and a re-check I made a few days later.

Mindful of the danger of proliferation of such sources, a

very small number of secondary sources have been included in

the inventory because they were judged to add a new dimension

to the primary data (as was the case with (215), e.g.) and were

not simply tabulations or re-tabulations (which are useful

when they are designed to make a point and are used as building

blocks, but which often only seem to create confusion and

sometimes lend an unwarranted authority to weak primary data).

Marketing studies, which in the Central American countries

contain much information about the economy of the small farmer's

world, have not generally been included. An example of a good

study, however, is the one of staple grain marketing in Honduras

done by F. F. Slaney and Co. Ltd. of Vancouver for the Canadian

International Development Agency (CIDA) and the CONSUPLANE,

published in February 1975. Similarly, epidemiological studies

in rural areas often throw light on the customs and life styles

of small farmers and landless laborers.

By the end of my trip, it became clear I was going to find

little or no data on two data series I had included at the out-





12.


set as being of relevance: household savings (V33) and

incidence of alcoholism (V124). I took the opportunity of

discussing this lack with persons of some experience in the

field. Dr. Robert E. Klein of INCAP, Guatemala, probably was

stating only the obvious when he said that his socioeconomic

research unit had decided not to include a question on household

savings in their questionnaires because the subject was too

sensitive and might do damage to the rest of the data obtained.

Dr. Miguel Guzman of INCAP pointed out to me that it was

difficult enough to obtain reliable data on consumption of

water (needed, for instance, in studies of intake of micro

nutrients) without trying to get reliable data on consumption

of alcoholic beverages. That is, the margin of error in the

data obtained (depending, one supposes, on who the interviewee

is: husband or wife) is simply too great to make the effort

worthwhile.

The following are, obviously, either/or pairs of variables:

V37 and V38
V71 and V72 or V73
V79 and V80
V106 and V107
V108 and V109
V129 and V130
V131 and V132

Note also that V73 data may complement V107 data, since

household food consumption surveys, even if based on actual

measurement, may be restricted to food consumption within the

house. Also, V112 has been defined so as to avoid imputation

of value of home-produced consumption, always a risky business.





13.


The collection of reliable data on farm-gate prices

poses special problems in Central America. Under the pre-

valent system of marketing there, truckers contract to buy

farmers' production ahead of the harvest and often pay in

advance as an inducement, a form of credit provision. Lump-

sum payments for production of corn and beans are common in

Nicaragua while crops are still in the field. They also are

used for onions and other vegetables and even for tree crops

like avocado pears and mangoes. Actual weighing or other

measurement of the quantity of the produce changing hands in

these circumstances is almost impossible.

Data on infant mortality (V126) included herein vary

considerably in reliability since in the cases of some

studies they represent the rate calculated for the entire

country population (censuses) and of others for a single

village or a village sample (e.g. (122) is for a population

of 29).

The references have been given in no particular order,

except that they are listed roughly in the order in which

they were consulted.

Lastly, let me point out that the inventory cannot pre-

tend to be comprehensive. Others will no doubt be able to

think of data sources that should be included, and notice of

their additions will be welcomed.


As, for instance, a 1965 El Salvador law (Diario Oficial
del Gobierno, San Salvador, May 5, 1965) cited by Browning.
2
E.g. Albert G. Madsen, "Does El Salvador Agricultural Census
of 1971 Reflect Current Size of Farm Characteristics?" San
Salvador: USAID, Jan. 1975.






















III


THE VARIABLES










Legend

No underlining signifies a direct question or data
responsive directly to the variable.
x = Can be calculated from data reported in available
publication or paper.
x* = Data apparently recorded but not reported in
available publication or paper.









15.


VI Number of members of household


4, 5, 12*, 13*, 73,
115, 118, 121, 122,
141, 142, 146, 148,
176, 177, 178, 217,
247, 252, 254, 258,


76, 84, 89, 99, 101, 104,
126, 135, 137, 138, 139,
158, 159, 161, 166, 170,
219, 220, 221, 231, 239,
262, 267, 276, 308, 313.


V2 Age composition of the household


5, 13*, 73, 84, 89,
122, 126, 135, 137,
158, 159, 161, 166,
220, 221, 231, 239,
308, 313.


99, 101, 109, 115, 118,
138, 140, 141, 142, 146,
170, 172, 176, 177, 217,
242, 247, 252, 254, 258,


V3 Sex composition of the household


5, 73, 84, 89,
122, 126, 135,
159, 161, 166,
221, 231, 239,
313.


99, 101, 104, 109, 115, 118,
137, 138, 141, 142, 146, 148,
170, 172, 176, 177, 217, 219,
242, 247, 252, 254, 258, 267,


V4 Per cent of self-employed agricultural house-
holds in the sample (1)

62*, 76, 104, 135, 137, 142, 146, 159, 161,
216, 222.

V5 Land ownership per household

4, 12*, 13*, 51-59(?), 63, 64, 76, 84, 89,
100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 115, 118, 124,
138, 141, 178, 180(2), 193, 208(2), 221, 239.

V6 Land rented in by household (3)


4, 12*, 13*, 76, 84, 89, 101,
118, 124, 135, 136, 138, 140,
171, 173, 174, 175, 178, 181,
219, 220, 221, 239, 242, 258,


104, 106,
141, 158,
210, 211,
262, 313.


V7 Proportion of operational holding rented in

125, .127, 128, 138, 158, 171, 173, 174, 175,
178, 210, 211, 216, 219, 222, 23-9, T I. -


109,
140,
172,
242,


121,
148,
219,
267,


121,
158,
220,
308,


115,
161,
216,


107,
159,
212,







16.


V8 Landlord's address (4)

137, 174, 175.

V9 Absentee landlord?

173.

V10 Land operated that is communal

262.

Vll Size of operational holding


4, 32, 33, 34, 35,
43, 44, 60, 62*, 76, 84,
118, 124, 125, 127, 128,
174, 175, 178, 179, 180,
212, 213, 214, 216, 219,
267, 269, 273, 274, 275,


36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,
89, 101, 104, 106, 107, 115,
130, 140, 158, 167, 171, 173,
181, 182, 183, 184, 210, 211,
220, 221, 222, 239, 242, 262,
301, 308, 313.


V12 Land rented out by household

4, 76, 89, 101, 104, 106, 107, 124, 135, 137, 158,
162, 171, 173, 178, 181, 239.

V13 Estimate of viable size of farm to support one family

65*, 132, 195, 209, 219.

V14 Number of fragments per operational holding

4, 84, 118, 125(5), 127(5), 128(5), 138, 158, 171,
175, 178, 180(6), 181, 210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 222,
239, 262.

V15 Ratio of total cultivated land to adult males in the
sample (7)

137, 180.

V16 Percentage of landless households in the sample (8)

4, 76, 81, 89, 104, 132, 135, 137, 142, 158, 159,
161, 195, 215, 221.

V17 Number of attached laborers (mozos colonos) per
operational holding


210.







17.


V18 Land hunger, general description by locality

65*, 75, 132, 195, 306.

V19 Prevalence of sharecropping, general description
of magnitude by locality

65*.

V20 Change in prevalence of sharecropping: 5-year
time period, general description of magnitude
by locality

65*.

V21 Incidence of sharecropping per operational holding

4, 84, 89, 118, 135, 138, 159, 161, 178, 239, 262.

V22 Prevalence of squatting: general description of
magnitude by locality

65*, 75, 132, 195, 196.

V23 Change in prevalence of squatting: 5-year time
period, general description of magnitude by locality

65*.

V24 Incidence of squatting per operational holding

4, 178, 239.

V25 Passage of land into foreigners' hands: 5-year time
period, general description of magnitude by locality

65*.

V26 Lack of deeds to attest land ownership: general des-
cription of magnitude by locality or by country

65*, 199.

V27 Conversion of cultivated land to grazing land:
general description by locality


65*, 191.








18.


V28 Conversion of farm land to recreational development:
general description by locality

65*.

V29 Consolidation of small holdings into large holdings:
general description by locality

65*, 195.

V30 Degree of concentration of landholding

4, 76, 89, 106, 107, 125, 127, 128, 171, 174, 175,
195, 210, 211, 221, 259.

V31 On-farm storage facilities

101, 120, 130, 136, 221, 262.

V32 Quantity of staple grain in storage on farm

89, 136, 140, 178(9), 221, 239(9).

V33 Amount of savings (in money or precious metal) per
household

Nil

V34 Livestock inventory per operational holding

4, 6, 12*, 13*, 16, 76, 84, 104, 106, 107, 115,
118, 125, 127, 128, 130, 136, 138, 158, 162, 171, 173,
174, 175, 178, 180(6), 181, 182, 184, 210, 211, 212,
214, 216, 220, 221(10), 222, 239, 242, 248, 262, 267,
313.

V35 Amount of debt per household

12*, 13*, 158, 170, 178, 208(6), 239, 267, 272(6).

V36 Credit yes/no

12*, 13*, 73, 101, 135, 137, 155, 158, 159, 160,
161, 162, 171, 178, 180, 184, 196, 208, 216(11), 222(11),
239, 242, 262, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 308, 313.

V37 Identification of sources of credit by type

65*, 72, 73, 77, 84, 101, 115, 118, 137, 155,
184, 262.








19.


V38 Identification of sources of credit by type and
amount

7, 125, 135, 136, 158, 159, 160, 161, 171, 178,
180, 208, 239, 242, 267, 308.

V39 Percentage of houses in community having running
water

9, 12*, 13*, 78, 103, 104, 110, 115, 120, 121,
129, 137, 141, 144, 158, 159, 170, 172, 210, 221,
247, 253, 255, 262, 312.

V40 Percentage of houses in community having flushing
toilet

9, 12*, 1-3*, 103, 104, 110, 115, 120, 121, 129,
137, 141, 144, 146, 158, 159, 170, 172, 178, 210,
221, 247, 253, 255, 262, 312.

V41 Percentage of houses in community having electricity

9, 12*, 13*, 104, 110, 120, 121, 129, 137, 141,
144, 146, 158, 170, 172, 210, 221, 247, 253, 255, 262,
312.

V42 Percentage of houses in community having refrigerator

66, 78, 104, 120, 121, 129, 141, 146, 158, 170,
172, 210, 221, 253, 255, 312.

V43 Source of drinking water

65*, 73, 78, 99, 104, 110, 103, 120, 121, 129, 137,
141, 144, 146, 155, 170, 172, 178, 206, 210, 221, 253,
255, 262, 312.

V44 Electrification of the community

65*, 73, 110, 115, 120, 121, 129, 144, 155, 172,
221, 247, 253, 255, 262, 312.

V45 Description of shelter by physical aspect

12*, 13*, 62*, 104, 110, 115, 120, 121, 129, 137,
141, 144, 146, 158, 159, 170, 172, 178, 206, 210, 220,
221, 247, 253, 255, 262, 308.

V46 Description of shelter by subjective aspect (good,
average, bad)


12*, 13*, 65*, 196.










20.


V47 Intensity of agricultural input use by quantities
by crop (all inputs except land and labor)

3, 4, 12*, 13*, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 84, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118,
124, 125(12), 127(12), 128(12,13), 131, 136, 138, 158,
167, 173, 178(14), 181, 197, 213, 216, 218, 222, 223,
239, 242, 250, 262, 267, 269, 271, 308, 313.

V48 Input prices: fertilizer, pesticides, etc.

20, 27, 30, 135, 136, 159, 161, 167, 178, 197,
198, 239, 242, 250.

V49 Irrigated land per operational holding

4, 84, 104, 108, 118, 125, 127, 128, 130, 135,
159, 161, 162, 171, 174, 178, 180(6), 181, 210, 211,
213, 216, 219, 222, 242.

V50 Private or communal irrigation system

128, 162.

V51 Input prices: irrigation charge per unit area

84, 118, 135, 136, 162, 178(15), 197, 239(15), 308.

V52 Input prices: value of land


65*, 89, 137,
222, 239, 273.

V53 Input prices:
period


155, 162, 178, 197, 208, 216, 221,


change in value of land: 5-year time


65*.


V54 Input prices: land rent

84, 89, 101, 118, 124, 132, 135, 137, 140, 141,
155, 158, 159, 161, 178, 197, 216, 220, 222, 239, 308.

V55 Change in input prices: land rent

138

V56 Input prices: sharecropping rate by crop


124, 178, 213, 216, 222, 239, 242.







21.


V57 Input prices: days of work in payment of rent per
unit area

216, 222.

V58 Input prices: size of private plots whose use is
granted to attached laborers (mozos colonos):
total size per operational holding

210.

V59 Input prices: cost of inputs furnished by landlord
specified in monetary terms in case of land rent or
sharecropping rate

178, 239.

V60 Input prices: interest rate paid to private money-
lenders

7, 65*, 73, 77, 135, 136, 158, 160, 161, 242.

V61 Hired labor/family labor dichotomy specified

84, 118, 120, 130, 141, 158, 171, 174, 175, 178,
180, 185, 186, 197, 216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 239, 242,
246, 267, 269, 271, 273, 308, 313.

V62 Permanent/casual hired labor dichotomy specified

130, 158, 173, 174.

V63 Agricultural labor force per operational holding
specified by age and sex, family and hired

125, 127, 128(16), 130, 135, 159, 161, 175, 219, 313.

V64 Participation in agricultural labor force of members
of household (per cent)

5, 13*, 62*, 73, 76, 84, 89, 101, 104, 118, 120,
135, 137, 141, 159, 161, 216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 267, 313.

V65 Duration of agricultural work by members of household
(hours per reporting period)

5, 13*, 49, 62*, 73, 84, 101, 118, 135, 159, 161,
178, 216, 218, 222, 223, 239, 242, 246(17), 250, 313.






22.


V66 Duration of off-farm work (hours per reporting period)

62*, 73, 135, 137, 158, 159, 161, 178, 216, 218,
222, 223, 239, 246(17).

V67 Perceived demand for agricultural wage labor

65*, 73, 84, 118, 120, 130, 155, 195, 313.

V68 Seasonality of agricultural wage labor

155, 195, 197, 220, 221, 246, 313.

V69 Origin of migratory agricultural laborers

173, 220, 221, 246, 262, 281.

V70 Estimated labor input requirement coefficient per crop

48, 99(18), 101(18), 131, 136, 138(18), 158, 160, 162,
178, 185, 186, 197, 216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 239, 250, 269,
271, 308, 313.

V71 Input prices: wage rate (undifferentiated)

5, 13*, 73, 81, 101, 111, 112, 113, 114, 124, 135,
136, T38, 158, 159, 161, 162, 173, 180, 197, 221, 262,
267, 269, 271, 300, 313.

V72 Input prices: wage rate (in cash)

17, 62*, 65*, 84, 89, 118, 132, 167, 178, 216, 218,
220, 222, 223, 239, 242, 246, 258.

V73 Input prices: wage rate (in kind and/or services)

17, 62*, 65*, 84, 89, 118, 132, 167, 178, 216, 218,
220, 222, 223, 239, 242, 246, 258.

V74 Total cost of production

10, 16, 19, 20, 22, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 60, 74, 90, 91, 92, 93,
94, 95, 96, 99, 101, 111, 112, 113, 114, 135, 136, 137,
141, 150, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, 170, 178, 180, 197,
239, 250, 260, 267, 273, 299, 313.







23.


V75 Cropping pattern

12*, 13*, 84, 101, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112,
113, 114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130,
132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 158, 159, 161, 162, 167, 170,
171, 173, 174, 175, 178, 180, 181, 183, 184, 210, 211,
212, 213, 214, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 239,
242, 248, 249, 250, 258, 267, 274, 275, 308, 313.

V76 Intercropping specified by crop and by area sown
to each crop

125, 127, 128, 132, 136, 167, 174, 181, 210, 211,
212, 213, 216, 220, 221, 222, 242, 274, 275, 313.

V77 Change in cropping pattern

65*, 124.

V78 Major crops of the community

155, 206, 313.

V79 Area harvested by crop per operational holding

2, 3, 4, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 101, 104, 106, 107, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130,
131(19), 132, 135, 136, 138, 158, 159, 161, 162, 173,
174, 175, 178, 179, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 218, 219,
220, 221, 222, 223, 239, 242, 248, 262, 267, 269(20),
270(20), 271(20), 274, 275, 313.

V80 Area harvested by crop in aggregate

60, 84, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118.

V81 Number of coffee plants rejuvenated in year of
reference

125, 173, 175, 179.

V82 Age classes of coffee plants

128, 173, 175, 179.

V83 Average yield by crop unweightedd)

2, 3, 4, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, '38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44, 60, 84, 101, 104, 107, 108, 118, 124,
125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 155, 158, 159, 160,
161, 162, 173, 178, 197, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 218,
219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 239, 242, 248, 262, 263, 267,
273, 274, 275, 308, 313.






24.


V84 Average yield by crop (weighted by farm size)

4, 12*, 13*, 84, 118, 125, 127, 178, 239, 242.

V85 Yield variability by crop (time series)

138, 197, 262.

V86 Farm-gate prices (non-livestock)

12*, 13*, 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43,
44, 50, 101, 119, 124, 132, 136, 138, 141, 155, 156,
157, 158, 160, 162, 168, 170, 173, 178, 197, 206, 216,
218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 239, 248, 256, 265, 267, 308.

V87 Livestock prices in selected markets

6, 141.

V88 Marketing of livestock by selected markets

6.

V89 Farm-gate price seasonality by crop or type of
livestock

33, 34, 65*, 84, 118, 160, 162, 173, 197, 248.

V90 Calendar of sales of output by household

138, 160, 173, 197, 248.

V91 Farm-gate price variability by crop (time series)

197.

V92 Farmer's subjective evaluation of riskiness of
production by crop

84, 118, 138.

V93 Farmer's subjective evaluation of previous three
years as good or bad

178

V94 Farmer's subjective evaluation of risk involved in
"borrowing money for the crops"

262







25.


V95 Moisture Availability Index (MAI)

29.

V96 Distance farm-market

12*, 13*, 101, 108, 121, 122, 141, 173, 197,
242, 249.

V97 Distance farm-motorable road

178, 239, 242.

V98 Travel time to the next largest town

65*, 73, 76, 120, 242, 308.

V99 Farm income (gross or net) specified in monetary
terms

16, 60, 62*, 84, 89, 118, 132, 135, 137, 141, 142,
146, 158, 159, 161, 162, 167, 170, 178, 206, 219, 221,
239, 242, 258, 267, 273, 303, 308, 313.

V100 Major source of farm income identified

125, 135, 140, 159, 161, 162, 167, 170, 178, 221,
239, 242.

V101 Off-farm income specified in monetary terms

62*, 84, 89, 118, 132, 135, 137, 138, 141, 142,
158, 159, 162, 170, 178, 216, 219, 221, 222, 239, 242,
258, 308.

V102 Work exchange with neighbors: number of days per year

138, 178, 216, 222, 239.

V103 Days per reporting period spent in artisanal pro-
duction or fishing

158.

V104 Days per reporting period spent in small trading

158

V105 Income (gross or net) earned from handicrafts,
small trading, fishing, etc.

178, 216, 221, 222, 239, 302.









26.


V106 Home consumption of product by product (kg.) by
size category of operational holding

4, 62*, 89, 104, 125(21), 140, 158, 178, 181, 213,
221, 239, 242.

V107 Home consumption of product per household by
product (ky.)

4, 25*, 26*, 62*, 101, 104, 124, 136, 138, 139,
158, 162, 170, 180(22), 197, 220, 258, 267, 308, 313.

V108 Total expenditure by household for purchased food
and fuel, purchased inputs, rent in cash and kind,
debt obligations, gifts and donations, and replace-
ment of used-up storage of staples, and animal feed

89, 221(23).

V109 Same as V108, but only counting cash expenditures

135, 137, 159, 161, 170.

V110 Proportion of income divided between consumption
and production expenses

101, 135, 137, 159, 161, 170, 258.

Vlll Percentage of total household expenditure devoted
to purchase of certain groups of foods (e.g. cereals
and pulses)

25*, 26*, 101(24), 170, 258.

V112 Percentage of total income spent for food purchases

62*, 89, 135, 137, 159, 161, 170, 242, 258.

V113 Estimated income elasticities of demand of rural
people for different categories of goods

207.

V114 Intra-household distribution of food consumption,
by food groups, by age group


195.









27.


V115 Total calories in diet per capital per day by
socioeconomic class (however defined)

8(?), 66, 78, 83, 206.

V116 Total grams of protein in diet per capital per
day by socioeconomic class (however defined)

8(?), 66, 78, 83, 206.

V117 Purchased consumption and home-produced consumption
(in kg.)

25*, 26*, 89.

V118 Total food consumption (kg.) by socioeconomic class
(however defined)

62*, 66.

V119 Frequency of consumption of meat, eggs, milk, fish

62*, 66, 76, 78, 83, 99, 117, 120, 139, 140, 152,
170, 262, 308.

V120 Purchase prices of foodstuffs

78, 80, 89, 155(25), 158, 220, 221.

V121 Purchase price of firewood

79, 221.

V122 Household's awareness of an adequate diet

78.

V123 Nutritional well-being of members of the household
anthropometryy)

8, 11, 46, 66, 98, 152, 153, 154, 164, 165, 169, 201,
202, 203, 204, 205, 277, 314.

V124 Incidence of alcoholism: general evaluation by locality

73, 103.

V125 Crude birth rate

31, 68, 104, 120, 121, 122, 126, 135, 137, 143,
159, 161, 166, 172, 176, 217, 231, 252, 254.






28.


V126 Infant mortality rate

31, 67, 104, 116, 120, 121, 122, 126, 135, 137,
143, 158, 159, 161, 166, 172, 176, 217, 231, 252,
254, 311.

V127 Number of registered births per reporting period

69, 85, 153, 217, 227, 231, 235.

V128 Number of registered deaths per reporting period

69, 86, 153, 217, 227, 231, 235.

V129 Literacy of adults in the household

5, 89, 104, 109, 115, 126, 135, 137, 141, 146,
148, 158, 159, 161, 166, 172, 177, 217, 220, 221, 231,
252, 254, 258, 267.

V130 Literacy of the head of household only

12*, 13*, 99, 101, 178, 239, 242, 246, 262, 276.

V131 Highest grade of school attained by each adult in
household

5, 84, 89, 104, 109, 115, 118, 126, 141, 146, 148,
158, 159, 161, 166, 172, 177, 206*, 217, 220, 221, 231,
252, 254, 258, 308.

V132 Highest grade of school attained by the head of
household only

62*, 99, 101, 176, 178, 239, 246, 262.

V133 Percentage of school-going children among girls of
5-14 age group

73, 89, 115, 135, 137, 146, 158, 159, 161, 177,
217, 221(26), 231, 252, 254.

V134 Perceived need for schooling

12*, 13*, 65*, 82, 99, 137, 158, 159, 196, 221,
225, 229, 237.

V135 Travel time household-school


146.







29.


V136 Measure of non-formal education

115, 137, 138, 146, 148, 162, 194, 217, 221,
229, 231, 237, 246, 262, 264, 265, 266, 308.

V137 Travel time house-fields

221, 308.

V138 Distance village-town

155, 228, 236.

V139 Rural-urban migration: 5-year time period,
general description of magnitude by locality

65*, 104(27), 195, 261.

V140 Rural-urban migration: 5-year time period,
change of place of residence

172.

V141 Rural-urban migration: 2-year time period,
change of place of residence

126, 141, 158, 166, 170, 217, 226, 231, 234.

V142 Rural-urban migration: 1-year time period,
change of place of residence

143, 158, 170, 176, 217, 226, 231, 234.

V143 Rural-urban migration: departure from the
household for what reason

135, 159, 161, 176, 226, 234.

V144 Rural-urban migration: displacement of the
whole household for what reason

158.

V145 Rural-rural migration

276, 280.

V146 Prevalence of cooperatives, campesino organiza-
tions, and/or labor unions

65*, 132, 137, 138, 141, 158, 159, 160, 178,
196, 208, 221, 239, 242, 246, 308.








30.


V147 Number of new latrines installed per reporting
period

69, 151.

V148 Number of houses improved per reporting period

69.

V149 Number of water pumps installed per reporting
period

69, 151.

V150 Main type of illness in the family

135, 137, 141, 151, 159, 311, 314.

V151 Incidence of requirement of modern medical treatment

221.






31.


Footnotes

If other than 100 per cent.
2
Per collectivity.
3
Includes all forms of rental arrangements and colonato.
Permits calculation of incidence of absentee landlordism.
Within same municipio.
Per collectivity.
7
In cases only where sample represents a meaningful
geographic entity, such as a village or community.
If other than 100..per cent or 0 per cent.

Proportion of each crop "kept to be sold later."
1Value only.
11
For productive use only.
12
1Manure and fertilizer only.
13
Area covered only.
14
Home-grown seed and chemical fertilizer only.
15
.Irrigation and drainage costs aggregated.
16
No distinction of sex.
7Household head only.
18
1Hired labor only.
19
Area worked (trabajada).
20
Area sown.
21
2Only for coffee.
22
Per collectivity; consumption, storage and waste ag-
gregated under "consumption and other."
23Investigator omitted to get data on number of agri-
cultural laborers employed, but says he could get
these data retrospectively.
24
Purchased foods listed, but no total household ex-
penditure data elicited.
25
2Bottled milk only.
2Children aged 6-16.
27
Only in case the persons) moved from one municipio
to another.
























THE SOURCES












Legend

QI = Questionnaire included.
QNI = Questionnaire not included.

1 manzana = 0.69 hectare






33.


1. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Comercio.
Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos. Segundo Inven-
tario de las Estadisticas Nacionales, Repdblica de Costa
Rica, 1970. San Jose, 1972.

2. Encuesta Agricola por Muestreo 1969: Arroz, Frijol,
Maiz. San Jos6, Sept. 1969.
Co-ordinated by Banco Central de Costa Rica. Coverage:
national. Time frame: agricultural year 1 May 1968 30
April 1969, and forecasts for the following agricultural
year. Method: direct interviews of farmers. Sample: chosen
from the following populations: "fincas grandes o especial-
izadas" (100 per cent sample), and "fincas pequefias (mayores
de una manzana)". All data tabulated by "zonas," viz.
"lechera; cultivos permanentes; cereales y ganaderia."

3. Encuesta Agricola por Muestreo en las Regiones
Agricolas de Costa Rica, 1971: Arroz, Frijol, Maiz. San
Jos6: Aug. 1972.
Coverage: all census farms in country except those less
than 0.7 ha., those located in census zones with less than
40 per cent rural population, and those located in Talamanca
District (hab. Indians, difficult of access). Time frame:
agricultural year 1 May 1971 30 April 1972. All data were
tabulated by six "agricultural regions." Sample: chosen from
the following populations: "fincas especiales" (100 per cent
sample), farms with less than 7 ha. rice and corn, less than
3.5 ha. beans (two-stage sampling process except for Pacifico
Seco where three stages used; no per centage given, but appears
to have been 1:20). Method: interviews of farmers.

4. Censos Nacionales de 1973. Agropecuario. Regiones
Agricolas. San Jos6, June 1975.
National census results. Time frame: agricultural year
1 May 1972 30 April 1973 except for some questions which
refer to day of interview. Method: interviews of farmers.
Data are tabulated by country as a whole and by seven "agri-
cultural regions." QI.

5. Censos Nacionales de 1973. Poblaci6n. San Jose, 2 vols.,
Dec. 1974 and April 1975.
National census results. Time frame: 14 19 May 1973.
Tabulates participation in work force according to all persons
of age 12 or more who worked at least one hour during the week
of 7 12 May 1973. Defines literacy to be the ability to read
and write a simple paragraph in any idiom. QI.

6. Encuesta Pecuaria por Muestreo 1970. San Jose, Sept.
1970.
Time frame: 1 April 1970.









34.


7. Marco A. Escribano C. Credito Rural: Algunos Aspectos.
Institute de Fomento y Asesoria Municipal (IFAM) and
Acci6n Internacional Tecnica, Divisi6n de Acci6n Inter-
national (sic.) San Jose, Dec. 1975.
Survey of a sample of 372 comunidades in 27 cantones
in three regions of Costa Rica. Method: interview with
questionnaire. Sample was stratified by population size
of the comunidad as follows: (1) pop. less than 500; (2)
pop. 501 2,000; (3) pop. more than 2,000.

8. J. Valverde and J. Quir6s. Encuestas Nacionales en Costa
Rica. Institute Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la
OEA, 1972.
A survey of food consumption and anthropometry for
children 7-14 in 6 areas of Costa Rica. Includes food
consumption and anthropometry for children aged 7-14.

9. Institute de Fomento y Asesoria Municipal (IFAM) and Acci6n
International T&cnica (AITEC), Divisi6n de Acci6n Inter-
nacional. Estudio de Servicios Basicos en 30 Cantones.
Parte I: Resumen General. San Jos6, Sept. 1974.
Sample survey based on interviews in 453 comunidades
in 30 cantones using (65). Data are not on computer tape.

10. Luis Fernando Escalante Soto. Analisis Econ6mico del Costo
de Produccio6 de Frijol (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.). Unpublished
thesis for Faculty of Agronomy, University of Costa Rica, 1974.
Sample survey of 257 operational holdings growing frijol
selected from 6 provinces of Costa Rica (not including Heredia).

11. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).
Oficina de Investigaciones Internacionales de los Institutos
Nacionales de Salud (EEUU). Ministerio de Salubridad Publica.
Evaluaci6n Nutricional de la Poblaci6n de Centro America y
Panama: Costa Rica. INCAP V-28. N.p., 1969.
A sample survey based on a 0.27 per cent sample of the
total population of Costa Rica, divided into San Jose and
non-San Jose. Techniques used included clinical nutritional
examination of 4,065 persons, anthropometric measurements
and description of the environment. Time frame: April June
1966. See also (243).

12. Rafael Angel Rodriguez Picado. Bases para la Planificaci6n
del Desarrollo Pecuario del Pacifico Sur. Unpublished thesis
for Faculty of Agronomy, University of Costa Rica, 1973.
Survey of 917 fincas representing 7.14 per cent in the
region of Pacifico Sur, Costa Rica. Method: interviews of
farmers using questionnaire. QI.

13. Fernando Antonio Rivera Rodriguez. Estudio de la Problematica
Agricola del Pacifico Sur de Costa Rica y Bases para la Plani-
ficaci6n de Su Desarrollo. Unpublished thesis for Faculty of
Agronomy, University of Costa Rica, 1973.
Survey of 917 fincas representing 7.14 per cent in the
region of Pacifico Sur. Method: same as (12) although question-
naire has slight differences. QI.







35.


14. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Trabajo y Bienestar Social.
Estudio Socio-Econ6mico de la Region Noreste de Guanacaste.
San Jos6, July 1967.
Sample survey of both urban and rural population. The
results would seem to have been rendered obsolete by the
1973 census.

15. "Balance de Recursos Alimenticios de la Poblaci6n
de Costa Rica, Disponibilidad y Necesidades, Segun Calorias,
Proteinas, Vitamin A, y Hierro de los Productos por Regiones
Programaticas de Salud, Provincias, Cantones y Distritos."
Food balance sheets for Costa Rica, disaggregated down
to district level, consisting of computer printout sheets.

16. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Analisis
Econ6mico de la Producci6n Lechera en la Zona de Monteverde,
Puntarenas, 1970-1971. (Mimeographed bulletin)
Study of 14 dairies in the Santa Elena region. Time frame:
July 1970 June 1971. Method: interviews with operators.

17. Centro de Estudios Laborales Centroamericano. Analisis
Comparative sobre Sistemas de Salarios y Beneficios Sociales
del Sector Azucarero en Centroam6rica. Estudio No. 6. N.p.
(San Jos6?), 1975.
Tabulated data on wages of sugar cane field workers in
each country of Central America and Panama. See also (71).

18. V. M. Esquival Benavides. Analisis Econ6mico del Costo de
Producci6n de Maiz (Zea Mays L.). Unpublished thesis,
University of Costa Rica, 1974.

19. J. Osborne, G. Alfaro, J. Craig Tinney, F. A. Villalobos.
Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Arroz, Pacifico Seco,
Zona de Sardinal, 29 Fincas. San Jose: Ministerio de Agri-
cultura, Departamento de Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias,
Nov. 1974. (Mimeographed bulletin)
Time frame: July Oct. 1973.

20. Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, Secci6n de Tasaciones.
Manual de Costos Basicos de Actividades Agropecuarios 1973.
Cartago, 1973.
Contains cost of production data for a long list of crops.

21. S. Kenneth Shwedel, agricultural economist, unpublished
list of farm-level potato prices in the main Cartago market,
by weeks, Aug. 1974 Oct. 1975.

22. Gregorio Alfaro Arguedas and Edwin Marin Torres. Costos de
Producci6n de Cafe en Costa Rica. San Jos6: Oficina del
Cafe, 1968.







36.


23. Hernan Andueza Acufa. Estudio Agro-Econ6mico del Cultivo
del Tabaco en Costa Rica. Unpublished thesis for the
Faculty of Agronomy, University of Costa Rica, 1957.

24. Mario Cordoba L. Estudio Agro-Econ6mico de 22 Fincas de
Zaragoza de Palmares. Unpublished thesis for the Faculty
of Agronomy, University of Costa Rica, 1958.

25. Institute de Fomento y Asesoria Municipal (IFAM). Estudio
sobre el Mercadeo de Alimentos y la Remodelaci6n del Mereado
Municipal en el Canton de Puriscal. San Jos6: IFAM, Programa
Integral de Mercadeo Agropecuario, Serie Investigaciones
216. 1974.
A study of distribution and marketing of food in a market
town 45 kms. southwest of San Jose based on interviews with
145 households (including rural) and 87 merchants. The
report only summarizes the data on income and consumption,
which are on questionnaires as of the present.

26. Estudio sobre el Mercadeo de Alimentos, la Remodela-
ci6n del Mercado Municipal y la Terminal de Autobuses en el
Canton de Naranjo.
Similar study as (25), this one for a market town north-
west of San Jose.

27. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Departa-
mento de Economia y Estadistica Agropecuaria. Boletin
Estadistico Agropecuario.
Quarterly bulletin. Contains input prices by "agricultural
regions." Reliability of data reported to be doubtful.

28. Gregorio Alfaro, Kenneth Krause, Craig Tinney, and Arturo
Villalobos F. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Yuca en
la Zona Norte, Zona de San Francisco de la Palmera. San Jos6:
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Departamento de
Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, June 1974. (Mimeo-
graphed bulletin)
Study based on interviews with 29 growers, average size
of holding 22.8 manzanas. Time frame: 1973.

29. George H. Hargreaves, Utah. State University. Computer
printouts by country showing Moisture Availability Index
(MAI) for meteorological stations with time series of
recorded data.
Professor Hargreaves' work has been done under Contract
No. AID/ta-c-1103. By March 1976, MAI will be available for
all the Central American countries based on data from
reporting stations ranging from 5 to 30 years' running.






37.


30. Gregorio Alfaro, Roberto Pacholke, Rodrigo'Gonzalez and
Fred Purdy. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Arroz en
el Pacifico Sur, Zona de Parrita, Mayo-Octubre 1971. San
Jos6: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Departamento
de Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, Nov. 1972.
(Mimeographed bulletin)
Study based on interviews with 26 rice farmers, average
size of holding 44 manzanas.

31. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Comercio.
Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos. Estadistica Vital
1972. San Jose.

32. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Departa-
mento de Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias. Analisis
Agroecon6mico del Maiz en la Region de Cartagena, Canton de
Santa Cruz, Guanacaste. San Jose, Sept. 1971. (Mimeographed)
Study of 11 farms, average size 22.5 manzanas. Gives
yield range.

33. Estudio Agroecon6mico del Cultivo de la Papa en la
Region de Zarcero. San Jos6, June 1972. (Mimeographed)
Study of 29 farms, average size 17.3 manzanas. Time frame:
May Oct. 1971. Gives yield range.

34. .Estudio Agroecon6mico de Cultivo de la Papa en la
Region de Cartago. San Jose, June 1972. (Mimeographed)
Study of 28 farms, average size 26.6 manzanas. Time
frame: Oct. Nov. 1971.

35. Gregorio Alfaro, Roberto Pacholke, Rodrigo Gonzalez and Fred
Purdy. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Okra en el Pacifico
Sur, Region de Puerto Cort6s. San Jose: Ministerio de Agri-
cultura y Ganaderia. Departamento de Economia y Estadisticas
Agropecuarias, Sept. 1972. (Mimeographed)
Study of 12 farms, average size 27.0 manzanas. Time frame:
Nov. 1971 May 1972.

36'. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Departa-
mento de Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias. Estudio de
Costos de Producci6n del Cultivo de Chayote en el Canton
de Paralso, Cartago. San Jos6, June 1972. (Mimeographed)
Study of 10 farms, average size not given. Time frame:
Feb. May 1972. Gives yield range.

37. Gregorio Alfaro, Oscar Calle, J. Craig Tinney and Arturo
Villalobos F. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Arroz en
la Region del Pacifico Seco, Zonas de Liberia, Carrillo y
Santa Cruz, 36 Fincas. San Jos6: Ministerio de Agricultura
y Ganaderia. Departamento de Economia y Estadisticas Agro-
pecuarias, Nov. 1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 36 farms, average size 28.3 manzanas. Time
frame: April Dec. 1972. Gives yield range.








38.


38. Gregorio Alfaro, Lusk F. Robinson, Arturo Villalobos and
J. Craig Tinney. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Papa
en la Region de San Carlos Sarapiqui, Zona de Zarcero,
30 Fincas. San Jos&: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia.
Departamento de Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, Nov.
1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 30 farms, average size 23.6 manzanas. Time
frame: Oct. 1972 March 1973.

39. Gregorio Alfaro, Arturo Villalobos, Robert Pacholke, J.
Craig Tinney and Peggy S. Barlett. Estudio de Costos de
Producci6n de Frijol en la Region Meseta Central Oriental
(Cartago), Zona de Puriscal, 51 Fincas. San Jose: Ministerio
de Agriculture y Ganaderia. Departamento de Economia y
Estadisticas Agropecuarias, Aug. 1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 51 farms, average size 12.4 manzanas. Time
frame: April Nov. 1972.

40. Gregorio Alfaro, Robert Pacholke, J. Craig Tinney, Peggy
S. Barlett and Arturo Villalobos. Estudio Econ6mico de
Costos de Producci6n de'Maiz en la Region Meseta Central
Oriental, Zona de Puriscal, 63 Fincas. San Jos6: Ministerio
de Agriculture y Ganaderia. Departamento de Economia y
Estadisticas Agropecuarias, Sept. 1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 63 farms, average size 11.5 manzanas. Time
frame: April Nov. 1972. Gives yield range.

41. Gregorio Alfaro, Robert Pacholke, Richard Burke, J. Craig
Tinney and Arturo Villalobos. Estudio de Costos de Produc-
ci6n de Maiz en la Region Meseta Central Occidental, Zona
de San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, 30 Fincas. San Jos6: Minis-
terio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Departamento de Economia
y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, July 1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 30 farms, average size 6.2 manzanas. Time
frame: May Dec. 1972. Gives yield range.

42. Gregorio Alfaro, Robert Pacholke, Richard Burke and Arturo
Villalobos. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Frijol en
la Region Meseta Central Occidental, Zona de San Rafael de
Ojo de Agua, 30 Fincas. San Jos6: Ministerio de Agricultura
y Ganaderia. Departamento de Economia y Estadisticas Agro-
pecuarias, July 1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 30 farms, average size 6.2 manzanas. Time frame:
Sept. Dec. 1972.

43. __ Estudio de Costos de Producci6n de Arroz, Zonas de
Orotina, Labrador, Santa Rita y Jaco, 25 Fincas. San Jose:
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Departamento de
Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, June 1973. (Mimeo.)
Study of 25 farms, average size 94.8 manzanas. Time
frame: June Dec. 1972. Gives yield range.







39.


44. Gregorio Alfaro, Robert Pacholke, Arturo Villalobos and
Jesus A. Hernandez R. Estudio de Costos de Producci6n
de Arroz en el Pacifico Seco, Zona de Liberia, Guanacaste,
32 Fincas. San Jose: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia.
Departamento de Economia y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, May
1973. (Mimeographed)
Study of 32 farms, average size 91.6 manzanas. Time frame:
May Dec. 1972. Gives yield range.

45. Banco Central de Costa Rica. Departamento de Cr6dito de
Desarrollo. Grupo Interbancario para Estudio de Avios.
Estimated detailed costs of production for cabbage, papa,
sorghum, tobacco, yuca, platano, cotton, frijol, rice,
corn, sugar cane. (Mimeographed)

46. Ian Rawson. "Nutrition Research Project in San Ramon, Costa
Rica." Unpublished summary interim report, Costa Rica, May
1974.

47. 1963 Population and Housing Census, Costa Rica.

48. Tenencia de la Tierra y Desarrollo Rural en Centroamerica.
San Jose: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana, Educa,
1973.
A volume of analysis with some tabulated data.

49. 1955 Census, Costa Rica.

50. 1963 Agricultural Census, Costa Rica.

51. Costa Rica. Institute de Tierras y Colonizaci6n. Estudio
Regional de la Zona Norte de Costa Rica. San Jos6, 1966.

52. .Estudio Regional de la Zona Atl6ntico Norte de
Costa Rica. San Jos&, 1966.

53. Estudio Regional de Paralso, Ujarras, Urasca.
San Jos5, Dec. 1970.

54. Estudio de Tenencia de la Tierra en la Provincia de
Lim6n. San Jos6, Jan. 1972.

55. Estimaciones sobre Tenencia y Uso de la Tierra y
Tamaho de la Parcela Familiar en el Valle Central. San
Jose, March 1970.

56. Estudio de le Region de Upala. San Jose, May 1964.

57. Estudio de Uso y Tenencia de la Tierra en el Canton
de Jimenez. San Jos6, Aug. 1973.





40.


58. Estudio de las Reservas Indigenas Boruca Terraba
y China Kicha. San Jos6, 1963.

59. Estudio de las Reservas Indigenas de Salitre.
San Jos6, June 1966.

60. Heraclio A. Lombardo. Analisis de una Economia Agrlcola
dentro de la Meseta Central de Costa Rica. San Jos&:
Institute Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas (IICA),
1965.
A survey of a rural community near Cartago, mixed small
farmers.

61. S. Matmana-Medina. Encuestas Socioecon6micas en Zonas
Agricolas Seleccionadas de los Paises Centroamericanos:
Resultados y Analisis. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Universi-
tario Centroamericano de Investigaciones Sociales y Eco-
n6micas, 1964(?).

62. Victor Hugo Cespedes S. Costa Rica: La Distribuci6n del
Ingreso y el Consumo de Algunos Alimentos. San Jos6:
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Costa Rica, Serie
Economia y Estadistica No. 45, 1973.
A national sample survey based on interviews with
3,100 families. QI. Financed by AID.

63. Costa Rica. Oficina de Catastro. Ministerio de Obras
PGblicas y Transportes.

64. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Hacienda. Registro Publico de
la Propiedad.

65. Convenio IFAM-AITEC. Institute de Fomento y Asesoria
Municipal. Estudio del Regimen Municipal, Servicios
Basicos. Boleta.
The use of this questionnaire was explained by
Jeffrey A. Ashe, AITEC Costa Rica, San Jose.
This questionnaire has been applied in 860 comunidades
in 57 rural cantones of Costa Rica, using a technique of
collective interviews. The principal focus is on the
infrastructural aspects of the rural people's well-being,
but the questionnaire is very comprehensive and detailed,
generating such primary data as wage rates and remuneration
in kind prevalent in the community, product price variability,
villagers' attitudes to problems, and some aspects of
agrarian relations.
As a methodological document explains, the purposes of
the survey include:
"To interview in a group persons who are locally con-
sidered to be knowledgeable about the community, instead of
interviewing individuals selected by a sampling procedure.
The time necessary for interview was thus reduced to three
or four hours per community. An effort was made to include
individuals from different social and economic levels in
the group.








"To solicit opinions from the interviewees (with respect
to the problems faced by the community, obtaining credit,
state of health, marketing) and to make use of these in
the analysis. These would supplement information obtained
by more objective means as to the infrastructure in the
community. It is assumed that the members of the community
are capable of interpreting important aspects of their
surroundings.
"To collect data on all aspects of the community's
situation, sacrificing detail in order to arrive at a
broader picture. With a good view of the general situation
the specific needs and projects can be efficiently chosen.
Later, on the basis of these data, detailed studies for
each specific project can be carried out.
"To tabulate the data by hand, using simple means and
avoiding heavy computer costs. .It has thus been
possible to edit a first report of analysis only three
months following the completion of field work."

66. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Salud Publica. Unpublished
national sample survey of nutrition, 1975.
This survey gathered data on: (1) anthropometric
measures, (2) dietary habits, and (3) presence of a
refrigerator in the house.

67. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Salud Publica. Departamento
de Es adistica. Mortalidad Infantil segin Distritos y
Canto es. San Jos6, Jan. 1975.
Contains tabulated data for the years 1970 and 1973.

68. Mortalidad Bruta y Natalidad segin Distrito. San
Jose, March 1975.
Contains tabulated data for the years 1970 and 1973.

69. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Salud Publica. Questionnaire.
A monthly record kept by each of the approximately 80
health posts attached to the ministry throughout the country.

70. Costa Rica. Ministerio de Trabajo. Labor force survey,
forthcoming 1976.

71. Centro de Estudios Laborales Centroamericano. Analisis
Comparativo sobre Sistemas de Trabajo y Precio en la Rama
de los Bananeros. San Jos6, 1975.
Same type of investigation as (17). Covers all the
Central American countries. As explained by an official of
the Centro, the data contained in this publication were
derived from review of contracts and reports of labor
union leaders who attended a seminar on the subject of
collective bargaining between labor unions and banana
companies. A draft of the tabulated data was circulated
to correspondents in all the countries covered, who made
the necessary corrections and changes. It was published
after further editing in the Centro.









42.


72. Nick Amarteifio. "Agricultural Credit: The Role of
Financieras and Prestamistas." Unpublished paper,
Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM), San Jose, 1969.
Study based on interviews with borrowers and lenders.
This paper and those that follow through (83) were made
available for consultation through the kindness of Dr.
Ridgway Satterthwaite, Program Director, ACM, San Jose.

73. Peggy Barlett. "The Use of Time in a Costa Rican Village."
Unpublished paper, ACM, San Jose, 1969.
Study by an anthropology student of a village of 450
inhabitants in Nicoya, Guanacaste. Time frame: Sept. -
Nov. 1968. Includes census of families, land use map of
village, discussion of the village economyincluding inter-
family exchanges, and a one-week-long time-motion study of
the eight household members with whom she lived.

74. Jonathan Buswell and Robert F. Voertman. "Costos de Mano
de Obra y Rumbo de Estos Costos para Diferentes T6cnicas
del Cultivo de Maiz en Costa Rica Muestreo ACM/CAFP 1967."
Unpublished paper, ACM, San Jose, 1967.
Reliability of original data not clear.

75. T. Edmund Downing and E. Jean Matterson. "Squatters: A
Form of Spontaneous Colonization in Costa Rica." Unpublished
paper, ACM, San Jos6, 1965.
A study of squatters on two private farms in San Carlos
and Nicoya. Time frame: Nov. 1964 July 1965. Contains
discussion of the legal procedure for titling land. Con-
tains tables, map of Costa Rica showing density of squatter
population. Contains text of a typical rental contract signed
by squatters. QI.

76. Decky Fiedler. "The Patron Peon System in Guanacaste The
Dissolving Bargain." Unpublished paper, ACM, San Jose, 1969.
A study of labor relations in a village in Nicoya, Guana-
caste. Contains diet information for two families for one
week. Also contains information on non-productive expenditure
for two families.

77. Peter L. Goedecke. "Suppliers of Inputs as Sources of
Agricultural Credit in Costa Rica." Unpublished paper, ACM,
San Jos6, 1969.
A study based on interviews.

78. Dinny Gottlieb. "Nutrition and Food Preparation in Santiago
de Puriscal and Grecia." Unpublished paper, ACM, San Jos6,
1974.
A study based on intensive interviews with 25 rural
families in each locality. Time frame: Feb. April 1974.
QI. Uses INCAP conversion factors.









43.


79. Nancy F. Jones. "The Use of Cooking Fuel in Costa Rica."
Unpublished paper, ACM, San Jose, 1974,

80. Ellen O'Malley. "A Comparison of the Utilization of
Locally Available Food Plants and Medicinal Plants in the
Towns of Santiago de Puriscal and Grecia." Unpublished
paper, ACM, San Jos6, 1974.
Time frame: Feb. April 1974.

81. Guita Modak. "The Rural Labor Situation in Part of Perez
Zeledon." Unpublished paper, ACM, San Jose, 1973.
Interview study. QI.

82. Carol Sue Nordengren. "The Family of Marino Chaves Fernandez
in San Rafael de Puriscal." Unpublished paper, ACM, San
Jose, 1968.

83. Susan Sanborn. "The Nutritional Status of Children in
Santiago de Puriscal and Grecia." Unpublished paper, ACM,
San Jose, 1974.
This appears to be the other half of the survey
described in (78).

84. CATIE/ROCAP Project Questionnaire. "Encuesta Preliminar
a Pequefos Agricultores en la Region de ___ Costa Rica."
Information was supplied by Dr. Damon Boynton, Project
Principal Adviser, Turrialba, Costa Rica. The project falls
into the category of those aimed at increasing productivity
of small farmers by research into means for change in the
croppirg systems they follow. Baseline data are obtained
by interviews with samples of small farmers using this
questionnaire. Considerable care goes into the selection of
the samples, for the aim is to cover as broad a range of
agroclimatic and agro-socioeconomic conditions as possible.
Desired sample size is 80 farmers. This questionnaire has
already been used in pilot surveys. A follow-up series of
surveys are planned to extend over a three-year period.
Data processing will be carried out at the computer center
of the Centro Agron6mico Tropical de Investigaciones y
Ensehanzas (CATIE) at Turrialba for this survey and for
others planned under the project in other countries of
Central America. The data are the property of the host
governments, the project personnel working by prior agree-
ment with personnel from various agencies of these governments
or institutions in these countries. See also (118).

85. Birth Certificates, Costa Rica, 1968 1971.

86. Death Certificates, Costa Rica, 1968 1971.

87. Banco Central de Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia, Industria
y Comercio. Censos Nacionales 1971. Poblaci6n. Vol. I.
Caracteristicas Generales. Vol. II. Caracteristicas Educa-
cionales. Vol. III. Caracteristicas Ecn6micas. Managua, Oct.






44.


1974. Poblaci6n por Municipio. Vol. I. Caracteristicas
Generales. Managua, March 1975.
National census results. Time frame: April 20, 1971.
Questionnaire printed separately.

88. Vivienda. Managua, Oct. 1974.
National census results. Time frame: April 20, 1971.
Questionnaire printed separately.

89. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Division
de Planificaci6n Sectorial. Agropecuaria. Censo Nacional
Agropecuario. Cuestionario para la Encuesta de Ingresos y
Empleo Rurales. Managua, 1976.
Time frame: May 1975 April 1976, except for stock
questions which refer to week of interview. Being applied
on a rotating regional basis.

90. Robert M. Finley. Analysis of Ajonjoli Production in Nicaragua:
A Detailed Study of Cost and Returns. Columbia, Missouri:
University of Missouri, Jan. 1974.
Sample: 55 farms producing sesame.

91. Analysis of the Production of Frijoles in Nicaragua:
A Detailed Stu y of Cost and Returns. Columbia, Missouri:
University of Missouri, Jan. 1974.
Sample: 220 farms.

92. Analysis of Livestock Farms in Nicaragua: A Detailed
Study of Costs -nd Returns. Columbia, Missouri: University
of Missouri, March 1974.
Sample: 160 farms.

93. Analysis of Maize Production in Nicaragua: A Detailed
Study of Costs and Returns. Columbia, Missouri: University
of Missouri, Dec. 1973.
Sample: 293 farms.

94. Analysis of Arroz Production in Nicaragua: A Detailed
Study of Costs and Returns. Columbia, Missouri: University
of Missouri, Feb. 1974.
Sample: 60 farms.

95. Analysis of Sorgo Production in Nicaragua: A Detailed
Study of Con:s and Returns. Columbia, Missouri: University of
Missouri, F.b. 1974.
Sample: 94 farms.

96. Philip F. Warnken. Production Costs and Returns for Major
Agricultural Products of Nicaragua: Data Tables for 1972
and 1975. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri, Feb. 1975.

97. Nicaragua. Institute Nacional de Comercio Exterior e Interior
(INCEI). Boletin Inrormativo.
A monthly bulletin containing monthly prices to farmers,






45.


averaged, each for corn, beans, rice, and industrial sorghum.

98. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panam6 (INCAP).
Oficina de Investigaciones Internacionales de los Institutos
Nacionales de Salud (EEUU). Ministerio de Salubridad Publica.
Evaluaci6n Nutricional de la Poblaci6n de Centro America
y Panama: Nicaragua. INCAP V-27. N.p., 1969.
Sample size: 3,477 individuals, or 0.21 per cent of the
total population of Nicaragua. Time frame: Jan. March 1966.
See also (243).

99. Nicaragua. Comite Nacional Agropecuario. Unidad de An6lisis
Sectorial. Encuesta Social a Nivel de Jefe de Familia.
A sample survey of 1,500 rural household heads. Time
frame: 1973.

100. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia. Oficina de Catastro.
Cadastral records in Nicaragua exist only for the
Pacific side of the country.

101. Nicaragua. Comite Nacional Agropecuario. Unidad de Analisis
Sectorial. Encuesta Socio Econ6mica de la Empresa Agropecuaria.
Aspectos Agricolas.
Time frame: 1 May 1971 30 April 1972.

102. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n de Estadistica
y Censos. Crecimiento de la Poblaci6n NicaragUense. Managua:
Boletin de Informaci6n, Jan. Feb. 1953, Vol. I.

103. Nicaragua. Unidad de Analisis del Secto' Salud. Questionnaire.
Time frame: Oct. 1975.

104. Nicaragua. Oficina Ejecutiva de los Censos. Manual del
Enumerador. Censos Nacionales 1971. Vivienda, Poblaci6n,
Agropecuario. Managua, 1971.
Contains questions asked.

105. Landholding survey, begun 23 Feb. 1976.
Sampling technique: area frame sample. Sample size:
20 per cent of segments in country.

106. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Censos Nacionales 1963. Agropecuario.
Caracteristicas Generales de las Explotaciones Agropecuarias
por Departamentos y Municipios. Managua, March 1966.
The results of the first census of agriculture. Time
frame: 25 April 1963 31 May 1963. Data cover the agricultural
year 1962 1963. Maps for corn, cotton, coffee, cattle. QNI.





46.


107. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica. Oficina Central de los Censos. Encuesta
Agropecuaria Preparatoria para el Censo General Agro-
pecuario Afo Agricola Mayo 1951 Abril 1952. Forma EAP-3.
Questionnaire.
Sample survey of 51,581 fincas of more than one manzana.
No questions on form of land tenure or agricultural labor.
Time frame: April 1952.

108. Nicaragua. Direcci6n General de Ingresos. Registro de
Tasaci6n Rural. Forma DV-H. Modificada el 8 de noviembre
1971.

109. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Censo General de la Poblaci6n de la
Repiblica de Nicaragua. Mayo de 1950. Volumen XVII. In-
forme General y Cifras de la Repiblica de Nicaragua.
Managua, Aug. 1954.
Census results.

110. Nicaragua. UNASEC. Two surveys on community and social
infrastructure. One was for cabeceras municipales and
the other for localidades.

111. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Centro de
Gesti6n Agricola. El Club de Agricultores de Pacayita. El
Ciclo Agricola de 1974. Managua, Feb. 1975.
This study and the ones through (114) were done by
French cooperants of the Grupo de Gesti6n Rural (Farm
Management Group) and their Nicaraguan counterparts in
the ministry as part of a program of training. Paper
written by Ing. Hubert Rischmann. Place: a community in
the department of Masaya.

112. Informe sobre el Grupo Agricola de Boaquito: "La
Uni6n". Managua, Aug. 1975.
Study written by Ing. Sergio Carot and Agr. Javier
Matus Lazo.

113. Informe sobre la Cooperativa Maria Auxiliadera
Apompoa. Managua, March 1975.
Study report written by Ing. Gerard Barbeau and
T. Ad. Francisco Guzmin Iglesias.

114. Las Cuentas de la Cooperativa "La Uni6n" Ciclos
70/71. 71/72. 72/73. 73/74. Managua, Oct. 1974.
Study report written by Ing. Hubert Rischmann.

115. Nicaragua. Ministerios de Agricultura, Educaci6n y Salud
Publica. PRODESAR. Segunda Etapa 1976 1978. Plan Anual
de Trabajo. Documento No. 4. Managua, Jan. 1976.








47.


Contains results of a benchmark sample survey,
"Estudio Socio-Econ6mico de las Comunidades del PRODESAR."
Sample size: 9,009 rural households in the departments of
Masaya, Granada, Carazo and Masatepe. Average household
size: 5.99. Literacy level of sample: 57 per cent.
Questionnaire contains questions on radio listening and
type of program listened to, which could be a measure
of non-formal education.

116. Nicaragua. Unidad de Analisis del Sector Salud. Estudios
de Morbilidad y'Mortalidad. Managua, 1975.
These are unpublished tabulations in the hands of the
U.A.S.S.

117. "Consumo Promedio de Alimentos entire Familias y Preescolares
del Area Rural de Nicaragua Resultados Obtenidos por el
M6todo de Registro diario de 3 dias." Unsourced table (un-
published INCAP data? GAFICA/FAO data?) found in a type-
written report "Informe del Diagn6stico del Componente de
Nutrici6n en el Sector Salud de Nicaragua; Documento Pre-
liminar Sujeto a Revisi6n del Comite Tecnico Especifico de
INCAP." (1975?)

118. CATIE/ROCAP Project Questionnaire. "Encuesta a Pequefos
Agricultores de la Region de Nicaragua." Feb. -
March 1976.
Questionnaire used in a sample survey of 40 small
farms in San Ram6n and 40 others in La Trinidad, both in
the department of Matagalpa. (Information supplied by Dr.
Orcar Hidalgo, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderla,
M:nagua.) Field work completed in February 1976. Data are
to be sent to CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, for processing.
Plans are to carry out a similar survey in an area of Zelaya
in 1977. See also (84).

119. Fundaci6n Nicaragiense de Desarrollo (FUNDE). Office files.

120. Catherine Grace Strachan. A Nutritional Assessment of Pre-
school Children in Rural Nicaragua. Yale University Master's
Report, 1971.
An intensive study of the village of Tonala, 20 miles
from Chinandega. Contains good description of houses and
environment of the village.

121. Robert S. Bell, Randall S. Kuhlmann and Ivan B. Schaller.
Health Care in the Orinoco Region, Nicaragua. 2 Feb. 1976.
(Mimeographed)
A study of the village of Orinoco in Zelaya. QI. Good
discussion of the difficulty of obtaining meaningful answers
to standard questionnaire queries on births, deaths, etc.










48.


122. David A. Tomb. Demographic and Health Survey of Selected
Miskito Indian Villages in Ea:;tern Nicaragua. N.d. (Mimeo,)
Study of 139 households in 4 villages using questionnaire.

123. Nicaragua. Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Comercio.
Banco Central de Nicaragua. Oficina Ejecutiva de los Censos,
Censos Nacionales. 20 Abril 1971. Agropecuario. Cifras
Preliminares, Recuento Manual. Boletin No. 2. Managua,
March 1972.
This is the only published volume of results of the
1971 census of agriculture, the second such census. As.
the introduction points out, a post-enumeration sample survey
revealed non-sampling errors of 33 per cent, 34 per cent,
and 42 per cent, respectively, in the data series on number
of farms, area, and livestock inventory. The present volume
contains, therefore, "adjusted" figures. There is general
agreement that the results of the first census of agriculture
(taken in 1963) (see (106)) were considerably more reliable
than those of 1971. Officials at thecensus office attribute
the existence of errors of significant magnitude in the
1971 census to a desire to proceed too rapidly, use of too
many enumerators, and insufficient attention to the training
of enumerators. The raw data, unedited, are on tapes at the
census office. The reporting unit was changed from "unidad
de explotaci6n" within the same comarca in 1963 to "unidad
de explotaci6n" within the same municipio in 1971.

124. __ Encuesta Agricola Granos Basicos (Primera Siembra
1974 75). Producci6n y Costo de Producci6n.
Sample survey. Sample size: 2,500 farms. Data collected
on corn, sorghum, beans, dry and wet rice Time frame: early
crop 1974 1975.

125. El Salvador. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Tercer Censo Nacional Agropecuario 1971.
Volumen I. Caracteristicas a Nivel Nacional, Departamental
y Municipal. San Salvador, Oct. 1974.
Results of third census of agriculture, aggregated. Unit
of reference: operational holding regardless of number of
fragments and tenure. Contains some aggregated comparisons
with second censils of agriculture (127). Time frame: agri-
cultural year 1 May 1970 30 April 1971 except for inventory
questions which refer to 22 Aug. 1971. Method: interview of
the operator or of someone who is identified as working on
the operational holding. QI. Income data restricted to a
general question dealing with sales of types of products,
although it is not clear from the explanatory notes whether
"products" is meant to include household labor used off the
farm. With respect to V14, the question asked yes/no if
worked fragments in other municipios, and'if yes, names of
others and cross-reference numbers to question aires in
those munici).7c! an improvement in methodology over (127).








126. Cuarto Censo Nacional de Poblaci6n 1971. Volumen
I. Caracteristicas Generales. C(ircteristicus Educadonales.
Fecundidad. San Salvador, Dec. 197)1.
Results of the fourth population census, aggregated.
Time frame: 28 June 1971 12 July 1971 in rural areas.
QI. Contains questions on birth place and residence two
years previous.

127. Segundo Censo Agropecuario 1961. San Salvador, Dec.
1967.
Census results aggregated. Unit of reference: operational
holding regardless of number of fragments and tenure. Time
frame: 1 May 1960 30 April 1961 except for inventory
questions which refer to 5 June 1961. Method: interview of
the operator or of someone who is identified as working on
the operational holding. QI. Includes two questionnaires:
one marked A-Fl for the operator or someone identified as
working on the holding, and one marked A-F2 for "productores
que hayan trabajado una o mas parcelas en calidad de colonos."
With respect to V14, the questionnaire asked yes/no if he
worked fragments located in other municipios as well.

128. Primer Censo Agropecuario. Octubre, Noviembre,
Diciembre de 1950. San Salvador, Oct. 1954.
Census results, aggregated. Unit of reference: operational
holding regardless of number of fragments or land tenure.
Time frame: agricultural year 1 May 1949 30 April 1950.
QI.

129. Tercer Censo Nacional de Vivienda 1971. San Salvador,
Dec. 1974.
Census results, aggregated. Unit of reference: house-
hold. Time frame: 28 June 1971 12 July 1971. QI.

130 El Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia.
and Direcci6n General de Economia Agropecuaria. Division de
131. Estadisticas Agropecuarias. Encuesta para Determinaci6n
de Insumos Agropecuarios. Questionnaires.
Use of the questionnaires was explained by Lic. Manuel
Vasquez Ramos, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, San
Salvador. The country is divided into 500 segments,
stratified by 10 types of predominent land use, using for
this purpose aerial photographs. From these, a rotating
sample of segments is selected at random for construction
of an open segment area frame sample. The investigation
then proceeds in two phases with use of questionnaires:
(1) an investigation of structural data, using (130);
(2) an investigation of input use per crop (called studioo
de casos"), using (131).
In the first phase, the unit of reference is the
operational holding, disregarding number of fragments and
land tenure. Accordingly, in (130) there are no questions
on land tenure; cropped and non-cropped areas are dis-
aggregated by cropping season. Questions on use of hired
labor (permanent and casual) by season and by type are
good.






50.


In the second phase, which involves selection of a
sub-sample, the unit of reference is the crop cultivated
per cropping season by one cultivator. It is considered
undesirable to include the same operational holding in
the sub-samples selected more than once because of the
problem of interviewee fatigue. In (131) the questions
on labor utilization by cropping operation are particularly
good. The questions about man-hours of labor per unit area
per crop are separated into three levels of technology:
tractor power, animal power, and man power.
Time frame: agricultural year 1975 1976.
A mimeographed publication has been issued: Encuesta
Piloto San Rafael Obrajuelo; Ensayo del Sistema de Muestreo
de Probibilidad de Area. San Salvador, Feb. 1975. This
explains the pilot survey. QI.
Advocates of the method of area frame sampling (muestreo
de probibilidad de area) maintain that it is suitable for
the construction of valid samples for the collection of
socioeconomic data even in the countries of Central America
with their highly heterogeneous pattern of cultivation. No
opinion is offered here on this matter. It is suggested,
however, that close attention be paid to recent experience
in the Dominican Republic, where the method has been trie.d.
It is clear that area frame sampling, where the means (maps
or aerial photographs) exist, provides a direct, relatively
inexpensive, and easily controllable (at least with respect
to area) method of sampling on a continuing basis, features
that make it more attractive than the method of sample con-
struction from lists of households which tend to get out of
date between censuses due to migration and other factors.
If the area frame sampling method can yield valid samples
for collection of socioeconomic data, it would seem highly
desirable to make use of it on a more extensive basis.

132. Allen LeBaron and Associates. Investigation of the Social
and Economic Aspects of the Proposed Tenure and Production
Program. Report No. 1. Findings of the Field Sur- 'ey and
Produ-ctivity of Target Families. (Preliminary, typewritten
draft) Logan, Utah(?), June 1975.
An informative study of agrarian relations in El Salvador
based on intensive interviewing of a stratified sample of
58 households from representative regions of the country.
Interview form contained 77 questions. From census data,
the authors calculate that the percentage of households
of landless laborers (what they call "tenureless" laborers)
is 37 per cent in Usulutan Department, 35 per cent in La Paz,
and 31 per cent in La Libertad Department (vs. national
average of 25 per cent), giving some idea of the concentra-
tion of landholding in these provinces. Tpe study documents
the rise in land values and rents in the densely populated
rural areas and the increase in the numbers of landless
laborers over time. Poverty here is not manifested by low
per capital gross income. The small renter may be in a worse
predicament than the landless laborer (see the distribution






51.


of gross income for a sample of households in La Libertad
Department given under reference (137), below.
This study contains some tabulated data on farm
budgets and household consumption, which are unfortunately
inadequately explained. Some graphed data on attitudes
toward work, children, cooperative membership, etc. are
also poorly explained.

133. Albert G. Madsen and Mark H. Karns. Consumption Patterns
of Selected Rural Families in El Salvador. San Salvador:
USAID Food and Agriculture Division, Jan. 1975. (Mimeo.)
A study based on interviews with 500 vegetable producers.

134. Mark H. Karns, Albert G. Madsen and Ricardo Molina. An
Intensive Study of Rural Consumption in El Salvador. San
Bartolome Perulapia, Department of Cuscatlan, El Salvador,
November 1974. San Salvador, Dec. 1974. (Mimeographed)

135. El Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia.
Direcci6n General de Obras de Riego y Drenaje. Departa-
mento de Estudios. Seccion de Agroeconomia. Investigaci6n
Socioecon6mica. Questionnaire.
Survey based on interviews with household heads.
Samples chosen from families in 10 minor irrigation projects
scattered throughout El Salvador. Field work completed and
data in process of analysis. Time frame: Sept. Oct. 1975.

136. Estudio Agroecon6mico de las Propiedades Incluidas
en el Area del Proyecto de la Zona Costera. Questionnaire.
Survey based on interviews with cultivators, taking
the operational holding as the reference unit. Questions
framed in terms of "present cropping season," "previous
cropping season," etc. Very good on labor utilization re-
quirement per crop per operation. Time frame: Sept. Oct.
1975. Data in process of analysis.

137. Investigaci6n Socioecon6mica, Distrito de Riego y
Avenamiento No. 1 Zapotitan. Febrero de 1971. San Salvador,
n.d.
Browning's book gives the history of the distribution
of the hacienda of Zapotitan, begun in 1943. It is not
altogether clear from this study what relationship the
area and its people bear to the original distribution, but
the scope of the study covers an irrigated area of 4,580
ha. in La Libertad Department containing 598 households,
of which 11.2 per cent are owner-operators, 41 per cent
renters of one type or another, 31.9 per cent landless
laborers, 10.2 per cent non-agriculturalists, and 5.7 per
cent other. Time frame: calendar year 1970. Method: inter-
views with heads of households. QI. The stated aim was to
obtain information on: demographic aspects of households,
levels of health, education and employment, character of
housing and possessions, well-being of households in rela-
tion to income, expenditure, and cost of living, media







52.
exposure, and social participation.
Because of the heavy incidence of land renting and
landlessness in the sample area, the data in this survey
throw some light on the relative well-being of various
categories of rural households. The following distribution
table, assembled from these data, is an illustration
(two separate stubs are required because of the manner
in which the data are presented in the source):

NUMBER OF PERSONS IN SAMPLE BY CATEGORY
OF GROSS FAMILY INCOME PER YEAR
COLONESS)


Gross Family
Income


Owner-
Operators


Renters


Gross Family
Income


Landless
Laborers


0-500


0-500
500-1,000

1,000-1,500

1,500-2,000

2,000-2,500

2,500-3,000

3,000-3,500

3,500-4,000

above 4,000


0-500
500-750
750-1,000
1,000-1,250
1,250-1,500
1,500-1,750
1,750-2,000
2,000-2,250
2,250-2,500
2,500-2,750
2,750-3,000
3,000-3,250
3,250-3,500
3,500-3,750
above 3,750


Source: compiled


from Tables 37 and 38.


Note: 2.5 Colones = US$1
The distribution of per capital income showed a similar
pattern.

138. Jesus Avilio Cutie Tula. Diffusion of Hybrid Corn Technology:
The Case of El Salvador. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975.
The writer gathered data by interviews from a country-
wide sample of 303 farmers, average farm size 2.66 ha. Time
frame: 1973(?). QI. Includes questions on listening to
agricultural extension programs on the radio. Also questions
asked interviewees to classify years as good, bad, or average,
and to estimate corn yields expected from each, and to fore-
cast frequency distribution in coming ten years.









53.


139. Albert G. Madsen y Mark Karns. Patrones de Consumo de
las Familias Rurales Seleccionadas en El Salvador. San
Salvador, Jan. 1975. (Mimeographed)
Spanish translation of (133). Data tabulated by size
of household. Uses INCAP conversion factors for foods for
estimating protein and calorie equivalents.

140. Un Estudio Intensivo de Consumo Rural en El Sal-
vador: San Bartolome Perulapia, Departamento'de Cuscatlan,
Noviembre 1974. San Salvador, Jan. 1975. (Mimeographed)
Spanish translation of (131). A study of 16 families
based on data recorded in families during 30 days. Question-
naire used but not included.

141. Jose Abilio Orellana Zelaya. Determinaci6n de Niveles de
Vida en Familias Cubiertas por Extensi6n Agricola en
Tonacatepeque. Unpublished thesis for the Facultad de
Ciencias Agron6micas, Universidad de El Salvador, Oct.
1967.
Study of a sample of 35 cultivator families selected
from 352 families covered by the extension service in
Tonacatepeque, situated 16 kms. northwest of San Salvador.
Time frame: 20-30 June 1967; crop and livestock sales 12
months previous to interview. Method: interview of heads
of families. QI. Data were collected in following fields:
demography, change of residence, occupation, income, land
tenure, education, housing and possessions, means of trans-
port, health and hygiene, public services, social partici-
pation.
After collecting his data, the writer applied the follow-
ing formula to each data series (which he attributed to:
G. Collazo-Collazo, J. Rios, and Ch. Ramsey, "Development
of a Level of Living Scale for Puerto Rico Rural Families,"
Rio Piedras: University of Puerto Rico, Agricultural Ex-
periment Station Bulletin No. 156, 1960.):

posesi6n
si no
alto a b
ingreso bajo c d de donde

= ad bc
S(a+b)(c+d)(a+c)(b+d)
where a, b, c, d are number of families having the character-
istic. He then correlated 0 with income and ranked the
characteristics by degree of correlation.

142. El Salvador. Comisi6n Nacional de Poblaci6n y Direcci6n
General de Estadistica y Censos. Muestra Wacional de
Hogares. Encuesta de Mano de Obra. San Salvador, n.d.
Questionnaire. National sample survey of 3,600 urban
and 2,800 rural households. First round: 1975. Two further
rounds planned for 1976.




54.


143. Muestra Nacional de Hogares. Encuesta de Migraci6n
Interna y Fecundidad. San Salvador, n.d.
Questionnaire. National sample survey of 3,600 urban
and 2,800 rural households. First round: 1975. Two further
rounds planned for 1976.

144. Muestra Nacional de Hogares. Caracteristicas
Generales de la Vivienda. San Salvador, n.d.
Questionnaire. National sample survey of 3,600 urban
and 2,800 rural households. First round: 1975. Two further
rounds planned for 1976.

145. El Salvador. Consejo Nacional de Planificaci6n y Coordinaci6n
Econ6mica (and) Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos.
Disefio de la Muestra Nacional de Hogares. Serie de Muestrario
Publicaci6n No. 2. San Salvador, Nov. 1975.
A methodological document.

146. El Salvador. Ministerio de Educaci6n. Oficina de Planeamiento
y Organizaci6n (ODEPOR). Analisis Sectorial de la Educaci6n.
Documento Estadistico de Trabajo No. 3. Estimaciones de
Resultados de la Prueba Nacional de los Estudiantes de
Educaci6n Basica y Estimaciones de Fadtores Sociales,
Econ6micos y Culturales de Sus Hogares Basadas en una
Sub-Muestra de Estudiantes. San Salvador, n.d.
Gives results of a large-sample survey of primary
school students including from rural households. Time
frame: Oct. 1974. QI. Contains questions on diet, exposure
to media.

147. El Salvador. Consejo Nacional de Planificaci6n y Coordinaci6n
Econ6mica (and) Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos.
Algunas Caracterlsticas Educacionales de la Poblaci6n
Salvadorefa. San Salvador, Jan. 1976.
Gives some results of (146) and some comparisons with
1971 census data.

148. El Salvador. Ministerio de Educaci6n. Oficina de Planeamiento
y Organizaci6n (ODEPOR). Analisis Sectorial de la Educaci6n.
Documento Estadistico de Trabajo No. 1. Resultados Estadisticos
de la Encuesta de Audencia. Muestreo por Cuotas. San Salvador,
Nov. 1975.
Gives results of a large national sample survey of
heads of 5,315 urban and 1,934 rural households dealing
with exposure to media.

149. El Salvador. Comisi6n Nacional de Poblaci6n y Direcci6n
General de Estadistica y Censos. National family budget
sample survey, forthcoming.
Planned to take place in 1977. Questionnaire designed.





55.


150. Banco de Fomento Agropecuario. Costos de Producci6n
1976-77. San Salvador. (Typewritten report)
Contains costs of production of: maiz (semilla,
commercial, criollo), maicillo (tecnificado, criollo),
frijol (solo, asociado), arroz, algod6n, ajonjoli,
sandia, mel6n, papa, cebolla, tomate, chile, citricos,
platano (siembra, commercial cafa de azucar (para
establecimiento, para comercio).

151. El Salvador. Ministerio de Salud PGblica y Asistencia
Social. Questionnaire.
The health posts of the ministry forward data on a
regular basis on the following data series: morbidity,
new water pipes installed, new water outlets installed,
new latrines installed, clinical measurement of nutrition.

152. U.S. Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control.
Centro de Investigaciones de Enfermedades Tropicales en
America Central (CIETAC)/Central American Research
Station (CARS). Unpublished large-sample survey of
nutritional status of La Paz Department, El Salvador.
Information was supplied by Dr. Fred Trowbridge,
Plantel del I.V.U., San Salvador. Data collected at 120
sample sites. Time frame: Jan. Feb. 1976. Sampling
method: random sample using probability proportional
to population (including both urban and rural). Anthropo-
metric and diet data. Data in process at CDC, Atlanta.
First results expected to be available at end of April
1976.
One of the purposes of this study was to test the
hypothesis that a significant regional difference in
incidence of malnourished children exists in La Paz
Department. Clinical data of the Ministry of Public
Health (see (151)) dating from 1972, 1974, and 1975 had
revealed a systematic variation: people living in the hill
belt in the north, a region of small "subsistence" farms
with poor communications, showed a higher incidence of
malnourished children than those living in the southern,
coastal belt, a region where the main source of liveli-
hood is wage labor on the cotton and sugar cane estates,
and an even higher incidence of infant malnutrition than
those living in the middle belt. The difference was
thought to be attributable to the existence of the
Coastal Highway, which runs east-west through the center
of the middle belt; because of this highway and its feeder
roads, no family living in the middle belt is distant more
than 15 minutes by car from a government health post. (The
data for 1973 were thrown away because the ministry had
fallen so far behind in tabulating work. The data for 1972,
1974 and 1975 were punched on cards and sent to CDC,
Atlanta for analysis.) Finding of non-significant dif-
ference would cast doubt on the value of recording clinical
data as the ministry does now.





56.


153. Unpublished study of nutritional status of a
population in La Libertad Department, El Salvador.
Information supplied by Dr. Trowbridge. This is an
intensive study of 5,000 people living in the Toluca area
of La Libertad. The population is under intensive demo-
graphic surveillance; births and deaths are registered,
investigators track people's movements on a monthly basis.
The survey will serve as a test of field methods comparing
clinical measurements of malnutrition with anthropometry.

154. Unpublished study of seasonal changes in the
nutritional status of a population in La Libertad Depart-
ment, El Salvador.
Information supplied by Dr. Trowbridge. Random sample
of pre-school children selected from the same population
as (153). Time frame: nutrition status is to be studied
at the following intervals: June 1975, Sept. 1975, Dec.
1975, and March 1976. The study is expected to reveal the
seasonal variation of malnutrition in children, if any,
resulting from the fact that the population lives in an area
of large cotton and sugar cane estates which provide wage
labor at'harvest time (October January) and therefore
concentrate the flow of income of landless laborers,
possibly unbalancing their flow of expenditure on foods
for family members.

155. El Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderla.
Direcci6n General de Obras de Riego y Drenaje. Departa-
mento de Estudios. Secci6n Agroeconomia. Formulario para
Estudios de Comunidades.
Questionnaire used for preliminary study of communities
where the ministry proposes to initiate irrigation and
drainage projects. Used in 1975 in Chalchuapa Atiquizaya.

156. El Salvador. Banco Central de Reserva. Unpublished data.
Typed sheets containing national average farm-gate
prices, annually for 1950 1966.

157. El Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia.
Oficina Sectorial de Planificaci6n Agropecuaria.
Reportedly has farm prices. Not verified.

158. Program de Fomento y Cooperaci6n Comunal por Esfuerzos
Propio y Ayuda Mutua (FOCCO). Investigaci6n sobre la
Situaci6n Econ6mica y Social de 3as Familias Rurales
en El Salvador. Comisi6n Nacional de Desarrollo Comunal,
Proyecto ELS/73/003 Naciones Unidas, San Salvador, Oct.
1975.
Questionnaire. Method: interview with heads of house-
holds. Unpublished data. Time frame: agricultural year
1 May 1974 30 April 1975. Question on possession of a
radio, but this alone was considered insufficient to be
a measure of non-formal education. Sample size: 2,000
households distributed nationally.






57.


159. El Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia.
Direcci6n General de Obras de Riego y Drenaje. Departa-
mento de Estudios. Secci6n Agroeconomia. Investigaci6n
Agro-Socio-Econ6mica, Proyecto Atiocoyo, Julio 1972.
San Salvador, 1972.
Report of a study based on interviews with heads of
619 households affected by an irrigation/drainage project
on 3,668 ha. in Atiocoyo Department. Time frame: field
work 17 July 1972 9 Aug. 1972 (22 enumerators), manual
tabulation of data 10 Aug. 1972 9 Sept. 1972 (12 persons).
This is a mixed farming area, growing corn, sorghum, rice
and vegetables.

160. Investigaci6n sobre Servicios de Apoyo a la Pro-
ducci6n, Distrito de Riego y Avenamiento No. 1, Zapotitan.
San Salvador, Aug. 1972.
Despite title, this study contains valuable information
on costs of production, prices, opinions of small farmers,
flows to market, income, credit, labor input requirements,
and so forth. The study is based on interviews with 412
cultivators. Time frame: field work 17 Sept. 1972 30
Sept. 1972 (7 enumerators), manual tabulation of data
2 Oct. 1972 18 Nov. 1972 (8 persons). See also (137).

161. Investigaci6n Agro-Socio-Econ6mica, Proyecto
Sonsonate Banderas. Agosto 1973. No. 5. San Salvador,
Aug. 1973.
Study based on interviews with heads of 1,198 house-
holds in a sugar cane and cotton growing coastal area of
8,040 ha. in Sonsonate Department, of which 5,054 ha. are
irrigated. Time frame: field work, 23 July 1973 24 Aug.
1973 (12 enumerators), manual tabulation of data 27 Aug.
1973 28 Sept. 1973 (12 persons). QI.

162. Investigaci6n Agroecon6mica, Proyecto de Riego y
Avenamiento Sonsonate Banderas. No. 6. San Salvador,
Aug. 1973.
Study based on interviews with 77 cultivators farming
a total of 6,196 ha. (77 per cent of area of the project)
in same general area as (161). A note states that more than
one-quarter of this area was planted to sugar cane on a
rental basis and at time of study no one was available to
be interviewed. Time frame: field work 24 July 1973 -
11 Aug. 1973 (6 enumerators plus 1 supervisor), manual
tabulation of data 28 Aug. 1973 26 Oct. 1973 (3 persons).
QI. Questions refer to "present cropping season" and
"previous cropping season."







58.


163. El Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderla.
Oficina Sectorial de Planificaci6n Agropecuaria.
Costos de Producci6n de Granos Basicos y Cultivos
Tradicionales de Exportaci6n. San Salvador, May 1975.
(mimeographed)
Costs of production of corn (3 levels of technology),
sorghum (3 levels of technology), frijol (different crops),
rice (3 levels of technology), coffee (3 levels of tech-
nology), cotton, and sugar cane (2 levels of technology).

164. Catholic Relief Services. Pre-School Malnutrition in Rural
El Salvador. San Salvador, Jan. 1975. (Typewritten).
Information supplied by Steve Otto, CRS, San Salvador.
A study of 213 pre-schbol children in 5' ril" oinmuhities
in Santa Ana Department, El Salvador, based on anthropo-
metric data. Analysis of the data revealed an incidence of
45 per cent of second and third degree malnutrition. The
results compared unfavorably with the 1965 INCAP nutrition
study of El Salvador (see (277)). The communities sampled
were not particularly disadvantaged, however, in terms of
their environment or history;in fact they had had the
benefit of two or three years of the presence of village-
level nutrition workers.

165. Study of nutrition status of pre-school children,
forthcoming.
A study of a nation-wide sample of 2,250 children aged
4 years or less. Sample to be at least three-quarters rural.
Data collection to start in March 1976 and to last two years.
Method: recordings of body weight only to be made at six-
month intervals in total of 45 centers (32 regular MCH
centers plus 13 villages that have been in the nutrition
education program supported for some time by CRS). Recordings
to be made by a special team using a special scale, thereby
ensuring control.

166. El Salvador. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General
de Estadistica y Censos. Tercer Censo Nacional de Poblaci6n
1961. San Salvador, June 1965.
Census results. Time frame: 2 16 May 1961 in rural
areas. QNI.

167. Institute Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la OEA.
Centro de Ensehanza e Investigaci6n. Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Cuestionario. Encuesta sobre Ingresos de los Negocios
Agricolas en la Zona del Proyecto de Riego y Drenaje de la
Cuenca Baja del Rio Grande de San Miguel, Usulut6n, El Salvador.
Questionnaire. Time frame: 15 Feb. 1967 15 Feb. 1968.






59.


168. Honduras. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales. Direcci6n de
Planificaci6n Sectorial. Departamento de Economia Agricola
y Estadisticas Agricolas. Questionnaire.
Information supplied by Lic. Jorge Hernan Galeas,
DEAEA, Comayagiela. Use of this questionnaire, complete
with instructions to the extension agents who are expected
to fill it out and forward it to the ministry on a monthly
basis, represents a major effort to collect farm-gate prices.
It has been under way on a trial basis since Aug. 1975.
Prices are obtained by asking farmers what were the maximum,
minimum, and most frequently observed prices during the
month. Questionnaire lists corn, beans, sorghum, and rice,
and leaves space for listing other crops. The price questions
have been added to the production questionnaire. Here, all
crops are categorized by three levels of technology:
traditionall," "semi-tecnificada", and "tecnificada." The
first means no use of machinery, chemical fertilizer,
improved seed, or pesticides. Data series refer to area
sown to each crop, estimated area of crop failure, area
already harvested, and area to be harvested; expected yield,
and total production expected, aggregated for the area of
the extension agent's responsibility. No attempt is made to
identify cultivators. A final question in this section
refers to the month in which most of each crop is expected
to be harvested. The reliability of the data collected by
this survey would seem to be subject to the usual caveats
about using extension agents as investigators.

169. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).
Oficina de Investigaciones Internacionales de los Institutos
Nacionales de Salud (EEUU). Ministerio de Salud Publica y
Asistencia Social. Evaluaci6n Nutricional de la Poblaci6n
de Centro Am6rica y Panama. Honduras. INCAP V-29. N.p., 1969.
A multi-faceted survey based on a 1.8 per cent sample
of the total population of Honduras, divided into San Pedro
Sula as "representative of the urban population" and other
localities said to be representative of the "rural popula-
tion." Techniques used included clinical nutritional
examination of 3,654 persons, 17 different anthropometric
measurements, and description of environment. Also a
biochemical study of a sub-sample. Also two questionnaire
methods of diet study applied to 5 families in each of
what I deduce to be 28 localities representative of the
"rural population." Time frame: Sept. Nov. 1966.
Diet data were collected by (1) recordatorio de 24 horas
and (2) m6todo de registro de 3 dias.
The smaller sample size involved in the diet component
of the survey has led observers to deduce that those data
are less reliable than the biochemical and clinical-
anthropometric data generated. Criticism has been made of
the preparation, training and supervision of the field
interviewers. The volume, which forms one of a series
(see also 243), is unfortunately weak on discussion of
methodology chosen and sample construction.





60.


170. Honduras. Secretaria de Economia y Hacienda. Direcci6n
General de Estadistica y Censos. Consejo Superior de
Planificaci6n Econ6mica. Institute de Investigaciones
(Ministerio de Trabajo). Institute de Investigaciones
Econ6micas (Facultad de Economia, Tegucigalpa). Banco
Central de Honduras. Encuesta de Presupuestos Familiares.
Questionnaire.
A questionnaire used in a national sample survey of
1,760 households, rural and urban. Time frame: April 1967
April 1968. Method: the questionnaire was applied to
an informantte" Also it identified the head of the house-
hold. Food purchases detailed for each day of one week.
For rural households, the questionnaire gets data on
production and disposal, including home consumption.
"It is probably the most comprehensive and precise
socio-economic study of the Honduran family to date."
(Bastiaan Schouten, written comment, June 1975)
According to (309), the preparation and field work
alone cost $63,000 and involved about 27 man-year equi-
valents of qualified personnel, of which 21 man-years
were spent in interviewing.
The methodology is described in C. E. Osorio,
Investiaci6n por Muestreo de Ingresos y Gastos de las
Familia! en Honduras, unpublished thesis for Facultad
de Ciencias Econ6micas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Honduras, 1969.
See also (187).

171. Honduras. Secretaria de Economla. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Censo Nacional Agropecuario 1974.
Questionnaire.
This is the third agricultural census. Method: inter-
view of the operator of the holding (la finca censal)
with notation of relationship of informant to operator
if other. Time frame: 1 May 1973 30 April 1974. Land
tenure classes in Honduran censuses are discussed in a
separate note at the end of this inventory. The results
of this census are expected to be published "in two or
three months." One volume of preliminary tabulations has
been published: Ministerio de Economia, Direcci6n General
de Estadistica y Censos. Tercer Censo Nacional Agropecuario
Agosto 1974. Cifras Preliminares. Maiz, Frijol, Arroz y
Maicillo: Superficie Sembrada y Producci6n. Ganado Bovino
y Porcino. Por Departamento y Municipio. Tegucigalpa, Jan.
1975.

172. Honduras. Ministerio de Economla. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Censo Nacional de Poblaci6n y
Vivienda Marzo de 1974. Questionnaire.
This is the population census. Time frame: March 1974.
A volume of preliminary results has been published:
Secretaria de Economia. Direcci6n General de Estadistica
y Censos. Censo Nacional de Poblaci6n y Vivienda Cifras
Preliminares. Tegucigalpa, Jan. 1975.






61.


173. Honduras. Secretaria de Economla. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Institute Hondureho del Caf6.
Censo Nacional Cafetalero 1973. Questionnaire.
Method: interview of operator of coffee-producing
holding. Time frame: agricultural year 1972 1973.
Data series inventories refer to coffee crop only,
except for cropping pattern. Harvest and sales data dis-
aggregated by month. Wages specified in terms of quantities
harvested. This is a very detailed questionnaire.

174. Honduras. Secretaria de Economla y Hacienda. Direcci6n
General de Estadistica y Censos. Segundo Censo Agropecuario
1965 66. N.p., n.d.
This is the published volume of the results of the
second agricultural census. Method: interview of the
operator of the holding. Time frame: 1 May 1965 30 April
1966. QI. Contains a very clear set of instructions to
enumerators.

175. Honduras. Ministerio de Gobernaci6n, Justicia, Sanidad y
Beneficencia. Direcci6n General de Censos y Estadisticas.
Departamento de Censos. Primer Censo Agropecuario 1952.
San Salvador (sic.), Dec. 1954.
This is the volume of published results of the first
agricultural census in Honduras. QI. Time frame: 15 March
1.951 14 March 1952. Method: same as (171). Also gives
computer card punching key.

176. Honduras. Secretaria de Economia y Hacienda. Direcci6n
General de Estadistica y Censos. Encuesta Demogr6fica
Nacional (EDENH) 1970 1972. Questionnaire.
Published results from this survey have been published
as follows by the Centro Latinamericano de Demografia
(CELADE), San Jose (Costa Rica): Fasciculo I, Guillermo
A. Macci6, Informe General (Jan. 1975), QI; Fasciculo II,
Jorge L. Somoza (and) Abel Packer, Resultados y Elaboraci6n
de Datos (April 1975); Fasciculo III, Zulma C. Camisa,
Fecundidad y Nupcialidad (May 1975); Fasciculo IV, Antonio
Ortega (and) Manuel Rinc6n, Mortalidad (Aug. 1975);
Fasciculo V, Jorge Arevalo, Migraciones (Oct. 1975);
Fasciculo VI, Albino Bocaz, Descripci6n de la Muestra
(Oct. 1975); a seventh volume, titled Analisis de Preguntas
Retrospectivas, was not seen.
This was a sample survey of 11,268 urban and 23,176
rural persons from all areas of Honduras except the eastern
third of the country and the Islas de la Bahia. Method and
time frame: repeated interviews with heads of sample house-
holds during the period 7 Dec. 1970 31 Oct. 1972. Personnel
used: 8 enumerators, 4 supervisors, 1 UN resident adviser,
1 national director. Costs: see below.









COSTS OF THE EDENH
(In US$)


Item Preparatory First Second Third Fourth Total
Phase Visit Visit Visit Visit


Salaries 5,225 6,600 6,600 8,800 8,800 36,025
Food and lodging 5,770 5,458 5,458 5,458 5,458 27,602
Material, equipment
and transportation 1,700 1,481 2,267 1,528 2,380 9,356
Tabulating and publishing2,767 5,950 4,600 4,200 8,900 26,367

Sub-Total 15,462 19,439 18,925 19,986 25,538 99,350

UN adviser's salary
at $24,000 p.a. 52,000

Other technical assistance
(CELADE) 6,000


TOTAL 157,350


Source: Fasciculo I, p. 44, Table 10.







63.


177. Censo Nacional de Honduras. (Unnumbered volume)
Caracteristicas Generales y Educativas de la Poblaci6n.
Abril 1961. Tegucigalpa, Dec. 1964. (Unnumbered volume)
Caracterlsticas Econ6micas de la Poblaci6n. Abril 1961.
Tegucigalpa, Dec. 1964.
Results of the 1961 census.

178. ATAC. Investigaci6n sobre Pequeios Agricultores. 1975.
Questionnaire.
A policy-oriented survey being done in Honduras by
ATAC under contract with AID/ Explanatory information was
provided by William H. Rusch, ATAC, Comayaglela, and
Dr. Ronald V. Curtis, USAID/Honduras. Time frame:
agricultural year 1975.
Contains question: "Who is the farm manager?" with
alternative answers: head of household (male); head of
household (female); both; other man; other woman; manager
outside the household. Sharing of cost of non-land inputs
(seed, fertilizer, etc.) derivable from data generated on
rent/sharecropping arrangements. Also question on squatting.
Question on estimated total capital value of farm, including
land. Disaggregates labor input for each crop by family/
hired labor and by age and sex for household members. Same
for off-farm work performed by household members, and
income of each from each type of such work is specified.
Contains question on migratory work by household members.
Much thought has obviously been given to the elaboration
of this questionnaire. One minor fault, however, would
seem to be the failure to distinguish between production
credit and credit for consumption purposes: the relevant
questions ask total borrowings, presumably for all pur-
poses (33 and 35) and total debt at time of interview,
excluding business other than agriculture as well as urban
investments (36).
Total 516 data fields. Data collection in progress.
Data processing will be done out of country.
Initial benchmark survey covers 5 groups: (1) model
asentamientos (chosen by the government; complete census);
(2) non-model asentamientos; (3) cooperatives; (4) indivi-
dual credit users; (5) control group (no credit use). After
one year a re-survey is planned of model asentamientos.
After two years a re-survey of model asentamientos and
new model asentamientos and cooperatives. After three years
a re-survey of model asentamientos and non-model asentamientos.
After four years a re-survey of model asentamientos, new
model asentamientos, non-model asentamientos, cooperatives,
individual credit users, and the control group.

179. Honduras. Secretaria de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Institute Hondurefo'del Caf6.
Encuesta de Pron6stico de Cosecha. Caf6. Questionnaire.
Annual survey. Time frame: three times per year
coinciding with phases of crop. Includes question aimed at
identifying producers and measuring sales and purchase of
coffee groves as well as coffee crop forecast.









64.


180. Honduras. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales. Efectos de
la Mecanizaci6n Agricola en Cooperativas y Asentamientos.
Boleta de Campo.
Questionnaire for a sample survey of some 300 of
these collectivities. Time frame: field work presently in
progress; data analysis expected in May 1976. Unit of
reference: the asentamiento or cooperative. Information
on methodology furnished by Felipe Vinicio Espinoza Guzman,
actuarial statistician, Banco Central de Honduras. Personnel
recruited by the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales include
6 enumerators. Sample size: 300 asentamientos, representing
about half of the total number of asentamientos in the
three regions under investigation: Norte, Sur, Olancho. The
attempt is to stratify by size of holding and to get 100
sample asentamientos in each of 3 categories of technology:
hand power, animal power, and tractor (at least one tractor
operation per crop) power. AID financing is involved here.

181. Honduras. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales.
Direcci6n General de Desarrollo Rural. Direcci6n General de
Agriculture y Ganaderia. Encuesta Agricola 1971. (Granos
Basicos, Inversiones en la Agricultura e Insumos).
Questionnaire.
Questionnaire used in a national sample survey of
10,000 cultivators representing about 5 per cent of the
population defined by the agricultural census of 1965.
Contains question who manages farm. Time frame: agricultural
year 1971. Much space devoted to capital investment of
the farm. No questions on agricultural labor.

182. Honduras. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Secci6n Agropecuaria. Encuesta de
Tasas Ganaderas (1975 1976). Questionnaire.
Basically a survey of livestock and livestock products
intended to permit calculation of mortality rates and
other technical matters. Method: four consecutive visits
to each producer.

183. Honduras. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales. Direcci6n de
Planificaci6n Sectorial. Departamento de Estadisticas
Agricolas. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Departamento de Estadisticas
Agropecuarias. Encuesta de Pron6stico de Cosechas de
Granos Basicos. Questionnaire.
A questionnaire used for surveying producers of beans,
corn, rice, and sorghum, but also including questions on
production of other crops. Method: interview of cultivators.
Questions on use of improved seed. Brief (3 pages). Data
presently being gathered.






65.


184. Honduras. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Departamento de Estadisticas
Agropecuarias. Encuesta de Dahos Causados por el Huracan
"Fifi". Questionnaire.
Survey of producers designed to measure impact of
Hurricane Fifi in 1974. Time frame: questions refer to
state of affairs as of 1 Sept. 1974 (before the hurricane)
and 15 Sept. 1974 (after). Compares areas sown with areas
expected to be harvested, livestock inventory before and
after, and permanent agricultural labor force (family and
hired) before and after. Results not evaluated, but would
appear to show a capability for fielding a farm survey
operation at short notice. Publication: Cifras de los
Dafos Causados por el Huracan Fifi en el Sector Agropecuario
March 1975.

185. Honduras. Secertaria de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Tomate. Questionnaire.
Questionnaire used in a survey of tomato producers.
Time frame: agricultural year 1 May 1971 30 April 1972.
Contains questions on calendar of production, labor
utilization.

186. Cebolla. Questionnaire.
Similar to (185).

187.'Honduras. Secretaria de Economia y Hacienda. Direcci6n
General de Estadistica y Censos. Encuesta de Hogares.
Mano de Obra. Formulario No. 400. Questionnaire.
Questionnaire for a labor utilization survey
evidently forming part of a larger survey. Method:
interview of head of household obtaining data on each member
of household. Marco Tulia Cortes, DGEC, Comayagiiela,
says this was undoubtedly part of the same survey as (170),
but as he was not in charge then he cannot be absolutely
certain.

188. Honduras. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica y Censos. Household survey, forthcoming.
Information supplied by Angel Diaz, FAO adviser to
DGEC, Comayagiela. Data series to be collected include income
and food consumption. Work expected to begin in late 1976.
New questionnaire is to be designed.

189. Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. El Niho Hondurefo. Las
Condiciones Bio-Psico Sociales del Nifo de 0-15 AHos en
Honduras. Estudio del Nifo. Informe Final. Tegucigalpa,
3 vols., April 1975.
Only 3 of 4 planned volumes have been published as of
this date. The fourth, containing results, has been withheld,
reportedly because of the controversial nature of the findings.
A commission is said to have been appointed to study the
matter. Sample: national. Sample Size: 2,901 households in





66.


20 municipios, of which more than 1,000 are in the
municipios of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. Method:
the data series sought by the investigators were very
ambitious; these included application of the following
tests (by age groups): Evolution of Gessel (0-3); Lorenzo
Filho (5-8); Inventory of personal adaptation of Rogers
(8-15); Raven (5-15); N.E.M.I. (3-15). Time frame: field
work April 1974 Nov. 1974.
Vol. I contains a description of the survey and dis-
cussion of methodology. Vol. II (missing) contains dis-
cussion of results. Vol. III (misnumbered II on outer
jacket) contains tables of data. Vol. IV (misnumbered III
on outer jacket) contains tables of data.

190. Organization of American States (OAS). Mapa Parcial de
Honduras. Clasificaci6n de la Tierra. 1962.
This is said to be the best land classification map of
Honduras at present. INA is working on a new cadastral survey
of Honduras which will make possible a detailed land use
map.

191. Melba Z~iiga. La Familia Campesina. Tegucigalpa: Instituto
de Investigaciones Socio-Econ6micas, Jan. 1975.
The author gives us an impressionistic account of the
peasant's view of the world and family life, including
many quotes and an account of a typical day, gleaned
from her travels through southern Honduras.

192. USAID/Honduras. Study of rural pilot schools in 3 villages
in Honduras, forthcoming.
In 1972 the government of Honduras began a program of
establishing rural pilot schools in which the curriculum
at the primary level was geared to agriculture. This is a
planned study of such schools by John Kelly, anthropologist,
and Marcie Bernbaum, psychologist. The study is to form
part of a USAID education sub-sector assessment due for
completion by April 30, 1976.

193. Honduras. Catastro Nacional.
This is the repository of juridical data on landholding
in Honduras.

194. Robert A. White. The Adult Education Program of Acci6n
Cultural Popular Hondurefa. An Evaluation of the Rural
Development Potential of the Radio School Movement in
Honduras. Full Report. St. Louis, Missouri: Department of
Anthropology and Sociology, St. Louis University; Teguci-
galpa: Centro Loyola. 2 vols. Oct. 1972.
Report of the results of a survey of a sample of 613
individuals in 15 communities "which was judged to represent
various degrees of success of the radio schools" (Vol. I,
p. 197). Method: questionnaire interview. QI.






67.


195. Rodney C. Stares. La Economia Camesina en la Zona Sur de
Honduras 1950 1970; Su Desarrollo y Perspectivas para
el Future. Report presented to the prelatura of Choluteca,
Sept. 1972. (Mimeographed)
Stares is an economist. He has produced a thorough study
of the economic evolution of a large rural region comprising
the departments of Choluteca and Valle. Contains analysis
based on Stares' unpublished study, Estudio de Ingresos y
Gastos Familiares en la Zona Sur de Honduras, Choluteca,
Oct. 1971; on unpublished data collected by the Equipo
Socio-Econ6mico-Religioso Choluteca in 1970, and on White's
data (see (207)). Maps. Contains many insights into the
vicious circle of rural poverty.

196. Gretchen Eoff. Evaluation Study of the Impact on Campesinos
of the Instituto Nacional Agrario/International Development
Foundation Agrarian Reform and Social Development Programs
in Honduras. Tegucigalpa, Sept. 1970. (Mimeographed)
Reports verbatim conversations with campesinos who
were included in a random sample of 591 heads of households
in 4 widely separated regions of Honduras by h interviewers.
Method: unstructured and semi-structured interviews, census
taking, observation, and participation. Interviews lasted
from 15 minutes to several hours each. Includes illustrative
sketches of rural poor households encountered.

197. Honduras. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales. Direcci6n de
Planificaci6n Sectorial. Departamento de Analisis Sectorial
Agricola. Proyecto de Analisis del Sector Agricola.
Boleta de Encuestas. Forma A.S.A. 1. 27/11/75.
Building on previous experience of cost of production
surveys in Honduras and attempting to systematize these,
the D.A.S.A. has since March 1975 been carrying out cost
of production surveys intended to generate data for sector
analysis. The methods used were explained by Carlos Andreas
Zelaya, D.A.S.A., Comayagiiela.
The method used is called judgment sampling. A small
region of the country is selected for survey work. Within
this small region, sub-regions consisting of a number of
ecologically relatively homogeneous agricultural zones are
defined. For data collection on the main crops, a greater
number of rather narrowly defined zones are defined within
the sub-region. For less important crops, a lesser number of
more broadly defined zones are defined. In other words, crops
exhibiting different levels of technology are further
distinguished. The size of the sampling frame varies
among crops and the unit of reference within the sampling
frame is the crop defined by level of technology. Cropwise
the number of sample units is roughly proportional to the
importance of the crop within the sub-region. Within each
sampling frame, 6, 8, or 10 questionnaires are completed
by means of interviews with cultivators. Data relate to
one crop year. Data series include calendar of input use
(including family and hired labor), input quantities and
prices of all inputs including land rent (in cash only,





68.


unfortunately!) and wages, output and disposal of output
(with calendar) and output prices. Data would have been
more useful if they had included a series on beginning and
end inventories of crops stored on farm. Generally speaking
this level of disaggregation makes the results more useful
than national averages, e.g. (163). Data processing takes
place in country.

198. Honduras: Precios de Insumos y Maquinaria Agricola
1972 1974 Proyectados a 1975. Tegucigalpa, Jan. 1975.
(mimeographed)
A very complete typewritten list, 10 pages long (single
spaced) giving input prices obtained directly from com-
mercial outlets of supply to farmers. Many are obviously
of little relevance to small farmers, but on the other hand
a machete No. 864/24 Tuncos cost 3.90 Lempiras in Nov. 1974.

199. AID. Capital Assistance Paper for Honduras. Loan 024.
Annex II, Exhibit 18. Letter from Planning Council dated
May 6, 1974.
This 10-page, single spaced typewritten document is the
best description of the state of land registry and other
records in Honduras that I saw. The document has been included
in a capital assistance paper for a loan-financed project
presently under way following passage by the government
of a law in Dec. 1974 providing for reorganization of the
land registry system.

200. Honduras. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales. Direcci6n de
Planificaci6n Sectorial. Departamento de Economia Agricola
y Estadisticas Agricolas. Agricultural labor survey, forth-
coming.
Lie. Jorge Hernan Gpleas, director of DEAEA, Comayagiela,
said his department has plans to undertake an agricultural
labor survey which would gather data on, among other things,
wages.

201. Honduras. Ministerio de Salud PGblica. Departamento de
Nutrici6n. Evaluaci6n Nutricional de los Grupos Campesinos
del Valle del Bajo Aguan. 1975.
Unpublished height and weight data from a survey of 773
children in 5 rural localities in Col6n Department. Infor-
mation supplied by Lic. Indira de Beausset, head of the
Department of Nutrition; also for (202 through 204).

202. Evaluaci6n Nutricional del Municipio de Colomoncagua,
Itibuca. June 1974.
Unpublished height and weight data from a survey of
104 children in a rural locality of Itibuca Department.

203. Evaluaci6n Nutricional en los Municipios de Nueva
Ocotepeque, Trinidad y Naranjito. 1972.
Unpublished height and weight data from a survey of
946 children in rural localities in the departments of
Ocotepeque, Copan, and Santa Barbara.






69.


204. Evaluaci6n Nutricional del Departamento de Santa
Barbara. 1972.
Unpublished height and weight data from a survey of
413 children in rural Santa B6rbara Department.

205. Universidad Autonoma de Honduras. Facultad de Medicina
Preventiva. Evaluaci6n Nutricional de los Municipios de
San Sebastian y Lamarl (Comayagua). 1974.
Unpublished height and weight data from a survey of
233 children in Comayagua Department.

206. Guillermo Arroyave, Miguel Guzman, and Marina Flores.
Socioeconomic Level of the Family and Nutrition in the
Rural Area of Central America and Panama. Unpublished
chapter scheduled for publication in Archivos Latin-
americanos de Nutrici6n (Caracas).
Information from Drs. Miguel Guzman, INCAP, and
Alfredo Mendez, Universidad del Valle, Guatemala.
The authors of this paper were members of the INCAP
survey team and according to their written account (p. 7)
this study was based on data from a sub-sample of approximately
one-half, or 1,841 families, of the total sample in all
the six countries surveyed (see (243)). As they state:
"The families in whom biochemical and dietary studies
were done are included in this group. The basic data for
calculating the socioeconomic index were obtained by
direct interview of the head of the family conducted by
properly trained and standardized field workers." (p. 7)
The data series used by the authors to construct their
socioeconomic index were: (1) Housing (ownership, type of
floor, roof, and kitchen facilities), (2) living space
(number of rooms, number of bedrooms and beds in relation
to members of the family), (3) sanitary conditions (type
of bed, drinking water source, wastage disposal system,
disposal of excreta of domestic animals in premise), (4)
food production at the family level (quantities of product
converted to total value by applying relevant prices
obtained in the local market), (5) income in cash and
total, (6) occupation of the family head, (7) scholarity
(ratio of total number of years of schooling possessed by
members of the family to the total number of years of
schooling stipulated by law for persons of similar ages),
(8) exposure to communication (radio, television, newspapers,
magazines) (Table 2).
"Each criterion was scored on a scale of 1.00 (the
lowest) to 3.00 (the highest). Maximum total score was
24.00 (8 x 3.00) and minimum 8.00 (8 x 1.00). For the
analysis of the dietary and biochemical data the total
group of families was subsequently divided into quartiles.
Families in the lowest and highest quartiles were labeled
"low" and "high" socioeconomic index respectively. The rest
were classified as "medium." A similar procedure was needed
for the integration of socioeconomic groups for evaluating
the anthropometric data, but in this case tertiles were used.
The scoring of the different items used in calculating the







70.


socioeconomic index of necessity was based on country
specific characteristics invalidating comparisons of the
index values between countries, since an index value of
1.5 in Guatemala does not mean the same as a 1.5 value
in Costa Rica." (pp. 7-8)
Dr. Guzman says that the socioeconomic index values
calculated did relate to biochemistry, dietary intake, and
anthropometry. "It was uncanny."
The methodology of the calculation of the socioeconomic
index is reported in Alfredo Mendez, "Metodo para Medir la
Situaci6n Sociocultural de la Familias Rurales Centr-
americanas y Su Aplicaci6n a los Programas de Salud,"
Archivos Latinamericanos de Nutrici6n, Vol. XX, No. 3,
Sept. 1970, pp. 281-291; and Guillermo Arroyave, Alfredo
M6ndez y Werner Ascoli, "Relaci6n entire Algunos Indices
Bioqulmicos del Estado Nutricional y Nivel Socio-Cultural
de las Familias en el Area 'Rural' de Centro America,"
ibid., Vol. XX, No. 2, June 1970, pp. 195-216.

207. Robert White, S.J. Estudio de la Capacidad Comunitaria
de Tomar Decisiones Colectivas. 1971. (Mimeographed)
Unpublished study based on data gathered in Choluteca
Department in interviews with 666 individuals in 13
communities.

208. Fundaci6n Hondurefa de Desarrollo (FUNHDESA). Ficha de
Investigaci6n de Solicitud de Cr6dito.
Information supplied by Lic. Fernando D. Montes,
Executive Director, FUNHDESA, a privately run foundation
affiliated with the Pan American Foundation. It provides
credit to farmer cooperatives which encounter difficulties
in obtaining credit elsewhere and which prove they intend
to use the funds for worthwhile purposes, including
the growing of a particular crop. FUNHDESA also provides
credit to some individuals upon ascertaining their background.
The procedure is well organized and standardized. The
documentation lists the main information required of the
prospective borrower, including indebtedness and value of
land. Sometimes the loan is repayable in a share of the
crop; in this case, another form, Comprobante de Recibo de
Cosecha, is given in receipt.

209. El Salvador. Institute de Colonizaci6n Rural. Political
Econ6mica del Instituto de Colonizaci6n Rural y Politica de
Desarrollo del Instituto de Colonizaci6n Rural. San Salvador,
1961.
The ICR was a predecessor of the Instituto Salvadorefo
de Transformaci6n Agraria (ISTA), the present agrarian
reform institute. This document contains a detailed study
of the size of farm necessary to sustain one rural household.










210. Guatemala. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General
de Estadistica. II Censo Agropecuario 1964. Guatemala,
5 vols.
Results of the second agricultural census. Reference
unit: operational holding. Method: interview of cultivator.
QI. DGE No. 381, with note that agricultural establishments
"dedicated to the raising of (large) animals or production
of animal products" would be investigated using another
questionnaire, II Censo de Vivienda, DGE No..379, also
included. Time frame: agricultural year 1 May 1963 30
April 1964.
Question on attached workers (mozos colonos) defines
them as follows: "todo aquel que vive permanentemente en
una finca y que puede a no gozar de una o mas parcelas
sin pago alguno; pero con el compromise de trabajar durante
todo o parte del tiempo en la finca donde tiene su vivienda,
recibiendo en pago por su trabajo parte en especie (raciones)
y parte en efectivo, pudiendo ser tambien s61o en efectivo."
Vol. I, Caracteristicas Generales, Concentraci6n y
Tenencia de la Tierra, Jan. 1968, contains in addition to
tables, maps and graphs, a series of Lorenz Curves showing
concentration of landholding nationally, regionally, and
by department, for 1950 and 1964.
Vol. II, Uso de la Tierra, Cultivos, April 1971, contains
tables, maps, charts.
Vol. III, Ganaderia, Jan. 1969, contains tables,
maps, charts.
Vol. IV, Aves de Corral, Colmenas, Productos Pecuarios,
Equipo y Vehiculos, Abono y Riegos, Energla en Labores
Agricolas, Mozos Colonos, Apendice, April 1969, contains
tables, maps, charts. The departments with the largest
numbers of mozos colonos, in order, are Alta Verapaz,
Suchitepequez, Escuintla.
Vol. V, Panorama de la Estructura Agropecuaria de Guate-
mala, Compendio General, March 1971.

211. Guatemala. Direcci6n General de Estadistica. Censo Agro-
pecuario 1950. Tomo I. Agriculture. Tomo II. Ganaderla.
Guatemala, Dec. 1954 and Aug. 1955.
Results of the first agricultural census. Vol. I
contains an interesting set of Lorenz Curves showing con-
centration of landholding in Guatemala as a whole,
Izabal, Totonicapan. Also excellent maps of the distribution
of major crops.

212. Guatemala. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica. Encuesta Agropecuaria. Julio 1973. Questionnaire.
Form DGE No. 538.
Information supplied by Lic. Marina Calder6n of this
office. This is one form used in a sample'survey implemented
once or twice yearly from 1970 through 1973 using a sample
of 5,900 farms. According to Lamar Merk's investigation of
this data source in 1975, the field work was done by senior
students at the Instituto Tecnico de Agricultura and by the
mayors of the municipios. Sample selection procedure is












described in Descripci6n del Plan de Muestreo para la
Encuesta Agropecuaria 1965. Unit of reference: operational
holding. Time frame: 1 May 1972 30 April 1973.

213. Guatemala. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica. Ministerio de Agricultura. INDECA. Encuesta
Agricola de Granos Basicos Mayo 1975. Questionnaire. Form
DGE No. 548.
This was one of two survey forms that replaced (212)
beginning in 1974 (used in May and Nov. 1974 and in May
1975); the other was (214).
Unit of reference: operational holding (finca censal
o unidad de explotaci6n). Method: interview of cultivator.
Time frame: Nov. 1974 April 1975.

214. Guatemala. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica. Encuesta de Ganado y Productos Pecuarios 1975.
Questionnaire. Form DGE No. 542.
Unit of reference: operational holding
Used in Jan. 1974 and Jan. 1975.

215. Two maps of Guatemala showing (1) gross value of agricultural
production per rural inhabitant; and (2) the arithmetic sum
of (a) number of farms of less than 2 manzanas per 100 ha.,
and (b) the number of landless laborers per 100 ha. by
municipio using differential coloring.
Data for each of 324 municipios were derived from 1964
agricultural census (210), and 1974 prices were used. Data
shown.on maps also exist in tabulated form.

216. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).
Division of Human Development. Tenancia de la Tierra de la
Familia Nuclear o Extenso. Questionnaire. Formulario Vida
Retrospectiva de Hombres.
Description of survey provided by Tim Farrell, anthro-
pologist, INCAP, Guatemala. The survey uses several sources.
A complete census of four villages in El Progreso
Department, a semi-arid area of small farmers in central
Guatemala. Data are at the household level within the
aldea. Method: interview with head of household using
questionnaire (216) to obtain male retrospective data,
supplemented by data generated from a variety of other
questionnaires, listed below. Time frame: 1974.

217. Census.
Same sample as (216). Time frame: 1967-75.

218. Ingreso y Riqueza. Questionnaire.
This is a second-year follow-up to (216) with same sample.
The main interest in designing this questionnaire was to gen-
erate data about cropping pattern changes on a year-to-year
basis.






73.


219. Manuel Gollas. Surplus Labor and Economic Development:
The Guatemalan Case. Madison, Wisconsin: Land Tenure Center,
Research Paper No. 39, Jan. 1970.
A production study of 348 small farms (average size of
holding 3 ha., average family income earned in the family's
own community $196.50) selected in a number of Highland
departments.

220. Lester Schmid. The Role of Migratory Labor in the Economic
Development of Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1967.
A study based on interviews with a purposive sample of
120 seasonal workers on 42 large coffee, sugar and cotton
growing estates in Guatemala, obtaining data on the
background and living conditions. Time frame: field work
Dec. 1965 March 1966.

221. Tim Farrell. Evaluation of Economic Growth and Community
Development in a Highland Guatemalan Town. Department of
Anthropology, UCLA, dissertation in process.
This is an intensive study of the village of San Lucas
Toliman on the shore of Lake Atitlan. Land tenure data
were derived from consistency checks among accounts pro-
vided by the older people in the village, who sometimes
produced private documents attesting to their ownership
of land in the village. All public documents relating to
land tenure were destroyed in a fire in the 1940's.
Private property in the village dates from the 1860's, when
some Indians, with government encouragement, began planting
coffee on communal land. This led to conflict with corn
growers, with some uprooting of coffee trees taking place.
The issue was settled when, under the pressure of the
coffee planters, the entire land of the village was surveyed
and deeded to members of the community in private ownership.
Farrell has had personal acquaintance with the village
and its inhabitants since 1969, when he arrived to do field
work for his master's thesis. Method: interview with
questionnaire. Size of sample: 85 Indian heads of households
and 28 Ladino heads of households. Data series are many
and include measures of media exposure including measure
of understanding, social participation, political awareness,
cash expenditures on gifts and religious obligations, parti-
cipation in coffee cooperative, occupational histories,
expenditures on food, fiesta expenditures (average $54 per
year; range: $3 to $350), civil obligations (average $44.50
per year), time spent per day in direct economic endeavor
(average 10.9 hours).

222. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).
Division of Human Development. Tenencia de la Tierra de la
Familia Nuclear o Extenso. Questionnaire. Formulario Vida
Retrospectiva de Hombres.
The same questionnaire as (216), applied to the village
of Petapa south of Guatemala City. The village is characterized
by considerable mobility. Time frame: 1974 1975.






74.

223. Ingreso y Riqueza. Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (218), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1975.

224. _. Time Budget Questionnaire.
Same sample as (216). Method: panel approach. Time
frame: 1975.

225. Parents' Expectation Questionnaire.
Same sample as (216). Method: cross-sectional. Time
frame: 1975 1976.

226.

227. Morbidity Survey Questionnaire.
Same sample as (216). Method: fortnightly. Time
frame: 1969 1976.

228. Community Survey Questionnaire.
Same sample as (216). Method: cross-sectional. Time
frame: 1975.

229. Social Stimulation Questionnaire.
Same sample as (216). Method: cross-sectional. Time
frame: 1974 1975. Data reported to be of poor quality.

230. Female Retrospective Questionnaire.
Same sample as (216). Time frame: 1974.

231. Census.
Same questionnaire as (217), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1973 1975.

232. Time Budget Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (224), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1975.

233. Parents' Expectation Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (225), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1975 1976.

234.


235. Morbidity Survey Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (227), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1969 1976.

236. Community Survey Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (228), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1975.

237. Social Stimulation Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (229), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1974 1975. Data reported to be of poor quality.









238. Female Retrospective Questionnaire.
Same questionnaire as (230), applied to Petapa.
Time frame: 1974.

239. William H. Rusch, Fred L. Mann, and Eugene Braun. Rural
Cooperatives in Guatemala: A Study of their Development
and Evaluation of A.I.D. Programs in their Support.
McLean, Va.: American Technical Assistance Corporation
(ATAC), Nov. 1975.
Although the introduction to this report states that
the survey was "designed primarily to serve the needs of
program managers for practical information useful in the
further development and administration of rural coopera-
tive programs in Guatemala," the survey generated a wealth
of data on small farmer income and production, land tenure,
use of credit, labor utilization, and other matters of
vital importance to researchers on the rural poverty
problem. The survey was carried out under AID contract
No. AID/CM-otr-c-73-198 W.O. 15. The data were edited,
tabulated and analyzed in the U.S., and copies of some
of the more important computer printouts were furnished
to USAID/Guatemala, in addition to the multi-volume final
report. The 29-page questionnaire was consulted in the
office of Carl Koone, RDO, USAID/Guatemala. (A separate
section of the questionnaire dealt with co-ops.)
Method: The sample was selected in a two-stage process:
(1) selection of co-ops randomly by department; (2)
selection of co-op members randomly. Sample size: 601
small farmers who were members of co-ops in the altiplano
of Guatemala and who had received credit and 200 members
of match groups (neighbors of co-op members with farms of
similar size). Interviews of farmers using questionnaire.
Time frame: field work 1975. Data correspond to the agri-
cultural year 1974.
Comment: The questions on land tenure have been
designed in a very sophisticated manner (the method has been
carried over to the design of (178) as well). Small farmers
in the altiplano own over 90 per cent of the land they
farm. The balance is largely rented for cash and only to
a slight extent in sharecropping or labor exchange arrange-
ments, although the last is found to some extent in Chimal-
tenango. The survey methodology shows value of work
performed on the landlord's farm as "non-family farm income"
and the equivalent figure is shown as a cost of land rental
in the family farm accounts.

240. Guatemala. Ministerio de Agricultura. Direcci6n General
de Servicios Agricolas (DIGESA). Unpublished data on costs
of production, yields, and gross income of production of
corn, beans, rice, wheat, sorghum, and sesame, tabulated
by regions and sub-regions, size of operational holding,
and cost components, by IBM, Centro de Servicio de Datos.
Also tables on labor input requirements for each operation,
tabulated by regions and sub-regions, and size of operational
holding.





76..


241. Unpublished frequency distributions of planned
and actual input usages, and yields by regions and
sub-regions, and size of operational holding for each
of the crops listed in (240), printout from IBM, Centro
de Servicio de Datos.
The data in (240) were derived from DIGESA's normal
follow-up field reports on its clients (see (267)) and
covered a sample of about 1,700 farms. Time frame: agri-
cultural year 1974 1975 (1 April 1974 30 Mar. 1975).
In an effort to evaluate the reliability of these data,
data on yields and input use from these same farmers'
farm plans filed at the time of making credit applications
were tabulated side by side with actual observed yields
and actual observed inputs used. The discrepancies of
input usage are significant in some cases. As the data
are disaggregated by crop and by region and sub-region, it
is a hypothesis capable of being tested that these dis-
crepancies are the result of diversion of high-value
inputs like fertilizer from "subsistence" crops to cash
crops.

242. Guatemala. Encuesta del Sector PGblico Agricola. Enero
1974. Questionnaire. Form LASA-AG-1 (1-15-74).
Questionnaire used in a policy-oriented large-sample
survey of about 1,600 small farms in Guatemala. Time frame:
data relate to the agricultural year 1973. Questionnaire
printed and pre-coded; bound booklet of 47 pages.
Methodology: Since one of the principal aims of those
who conducted the survey (the Consejo Nacional de Planifi-
caci6n Econ6mica with AID support) was to assess the impact
of the small-farmer credit program of the rural development
bank, BANDESA, the sample was constructed on the basis of
matched "credit farms" (i.e. those accepting credit from
BANDESA) and "non-credit farms." An enumeration of "credit
farms" was made from BANDESA records of loan applications.
These farms were matched one for one by local officials in
each of the 16 sub-regions covered by the survey (these ex-
cluded the Peten) on the basis of four characteristics of
the "credit farms" recorded at the time they made applica-
tions for loans: (1) area covered by the principal crop;
farm size; (3) farmer's age; (4) distance from the nearest
town. A random sample of 50 such pairs of farms was then
selected in each sub-region for investigation. (Note:
although BANDESA data show that most of the bank's loans go
to large farmers, the bank's small-farmer credit program
is operated from a trust fund and is separate.)
Field work occupied two months in the spring of 1974.
Interview times ranged from 45 minutes to two and a half
hours. Much attention was paid to training of the enumerators,
who were regular DIGESA promotores, and to supervision of
field work. A remarkable total of 774 out of 800 pairs of
questionnaires were found to be useable.
The questionnaire contains 958 data fields. Data editing
and processing occurred in the U.S. Key to tape processing
required only one week, and the error rate was reported to






77.


be less than one half of one per cent. Average punching
time per questionnaire was reported to be 9 minutes.

243. Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama.
Nutrition Program, Center for Disease Control, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Nutritional
Evaluation of the Population of Central America and Panama:
Regional Summary. Guatemala, 1971.
A summary of results derived from (11), (98), (169),
(244), and (277), as well as of a similar study in Panama.

244. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).
Oficina de Investigaciones Internacionales de los Institutos
Nacionales de Salud (EEUU). Ministerio de Salud Publica y
Asistencia Social. Evaluaci6n Nutricional de la Poblaci6n
de Centro America y Panama: Guatemala.,INCAP V-25. N.p., 1969.
Time frame: Feb. April 1965. Sample size: 4,113
individuals, or 0.9 per cent of the total population of
Guatemala.

245. Guatemala. Death Certificates, 1964.

246. Guatemala. Consejo Nacional de Planificaci6n Econ6mica.
Division de Recursos Humanos. Questionnaire.
This is the questionnaire for a labor force survey
planned to have taken place in March-April 1976, but
which was put off, probably for at least a year, because
*of the earthquake of Feb. 3, 1976. The sample had been
selected, consisting of about 7,000 households both rural
and urban, and the questionnaire was already pre-tested in
both areas. According to Lic. Miguel von Hoegen, CNPE,
there exists a view that the sample is no longer valid
following the changes in residence caused by the earthquake
and it may have to be re-designed. The budgeted cost for
field work, using enumerators of the Direcci6n General de
Estadistica, plus some to be newly recruited and trained,
is $130,000. The questionnaire contains many questions on
non-formal education, and an addition to the basic question-
naire is used to generate specifically rural data.

247. Guatemala. Secretaria del Consejo Nacional de Planificaci6n
Econ6mica. Direcci6n General de Estadistica. Banco Nacional
de la Vivienda. Municipalidad de Guatemala. Universidad de
San Carlos de Guatemala. Censo de Hogares y Condiciones
de Vivienda como Consecuencia de los Sismos de Febrero de
1976. Questionnaire.
This is the questionnaire of a special housing survey
made immediately following the Feb. 3, 1976, earthquake in
Guatemala City and also in each cabecera municipal and
departmental (where conditions are much closer to "rural"
than "urban"), using university students as enumerators.







78.


248. Guatemala. Institute Nacional de Comercializaci6n Agricola
(INDECA). Departamento Investigaci6n Capacitaci6n y Extensi6n
de Mercadeo. Algunos Aspectos de Producci6n y Comercializa-
ci6n de Maiz y Frijol en Varias Regiones del Pais. Guatemala,
June 1971.
As part of a marketing study of corn and beans in
Guatemala, the INDECA used a farm-level questionnaire
to gather data on production, sales, calendar of sales,
farm prices, etc. Sample: 10 to 20 per cent of "parcela-
mientos existentes en la region escogida" and similar
number of non-"parcelamientos." Time frame: agricultural
year 1970 1971.

249. Michael Joseph Rowan. Marketing Systems in a Plural
Peasant Society: A Guatemala Case Study. Unpublished
master's thesis, University of Georgia (Athens), 1971.
A study of Huehuetenango Department in terms of Central
Place Theory, using a variety of primary and secondary
data sources, including questionnaires administered to
vendors, shoppers, and persons at home. Time frame: field
work summer of 1969. QI.

250. David T. Johnson. Income Potential of Small Farms in
Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation for Iowa State
University, Aug. 1974.
Part of the data cited in this study came from a
crop production questionnaire. Sample size: 62 small
farmers in 26 different municipios in 8 Highland depart-
ments. Time frame: field work March June 1973.

251. Guatemala. Direcci6n General de Estadistica. Balances de
Disponibilidad/Utilizaci6n de Maiz Maicillo, Frijol,
Arroz, Trigo; Estimaciones Preliminares. Guatemala, Feb. 1976.
A study motivated by the earthquake of Feb. 3, 1976.
Production data for period 1 May 1975 to 31 Oct. 1975 derived
from a sample survey run by the DGE, Departamento de Censos,
in Nov. Dec. 1975, using same sample as used in (213),
according to Felipe Zaghi Luna, DGE, Punto Focal Nacional.
This survey also generated data on forecast production for
period 1 Nov. 1975 to 30 April 1976. Demand was estimated
on the basis of FAO coefficients.
Sample: The design of the sample is described as follows:
Selection based on lists of (1) parcelamientos and (2) other
operational holdings. A random sample was selected from (1).
(2) was stratified according to size of holding, as follows:
(a) larger than 100 manzanas (100 per cent sample); (b)
30 100 manzanas; and (c) less than 30 manzanas. For sampling
(2b), municipios in each department were selected proportionate-
ly to the square root of the total area harvested for all
crops except cotton; within theselected municipios, a complete
enumeration was effected. For (2c), using maps each selected
municipio was divided into smaller units with well defined
boundaries, and in each a predetermined number of operational
holdings was selected based on the 1973 population census.








79.


252. Guatemala. Ministerio de Economia. Direcci6n General de
Estadistica. VII Censo de Poblaci6n 1964. Vol. I. Metodologla.
Poblaci6n Total por Sexo, Edad, Grupo Etnico, Urbano-Rural
y Estado Civil. Guatemala, Aug. 1971.
Results of census. Questionnaire DGE No. 380. QI. Time
frame: 18 April 1964 27 April 1964.
As the numbering of Guatemalan population censuses is
rather confusing, here is the historical series:
I 1778
II 1880
III 1893
IV 1921
V 1940
VI 1950
VII 1964
VIII 1973

253. Vol. II. II Censo de Vivienda 1964. Viviendas
Particulares. Guatemala, June 1973.
Results of housing census. Questionnaire DGE No. 379.
QI. Time frame: 18 April 1964 27 April 1964.

254. VIII Censo de Poblaci6n 26 de Marzo de 1973. Series
III, Vol. I. Repiblica: Poblaci6n Total, Poblaci6n Indigena.
Guatemala, Aug. 1975.
Census results. QI. Time frame: 26 March 1973 7 April
.1973 in rural areas.

255. III Censo de Vivienda 26 Marzo de 1973. Viviendas
Particulares, Numero de Hogares. Guatemala, Feb. 1976.
Census results. Questionnaire is to be found in (254).
Time frame: 26 March 1973.

256. Estadisticas Agropecuarias Continuas 1974 1975.
Guatemala, Nov. 1975.
This publication contains 2 tables of average farm
prices of 13 crops and 7 other agricultural products, by
month of 1974 and by department. No explanatory notes as
to sources of data or methodology.

257. Carol Ann Smith. The Domestic Marketing System in Western
Guatemala: An Economic, Locational, and Cultural Analysis.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Stanford University, 1972.
A study of market places in the framework of Central
Place Theory.

258. Universidad de San Carlos, Instituto de Investigaciones
Econ6micas y Sociales. Encuesta sobre Ingresos y Gastos
de la Familia del Campesion Asalariado de Guatemala, 1966.
Guatemala, n.d.
A study of agricultural wage laborers. Method: inter-
views using questionnaire. Sample size: 1,800 families on







80.


300 farms, stratified by crop. QNI, but list of data
series included. Time frame: field work Sept. 1966 -
Jan. 1967 using 17 full-time enumerators plus 10 part-time
enumerators.
Costs of the survey, not including data processing,
are given as follows:
A. Personnel
Enumerators Q 10,654.67
Jefes de Revisi6n y Revisores 10,643.50
Supervisors 1,490.00
B. Training 312.00
C. Field Work
Food and lodging 10,583.00
Transport 1,991.00
D. Transport and Lodging of
Technical Personnel 862.85
E. Miscellaneous 5,088.50
TOTAL Q 41,625.52
(Note: Present exchange rate: Q1 = US$1)

259. Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola (CIDA).
Tenencia de la Tierra y Desarrollo Socio-Econ6mico
del Sector Agricola: Guatemala. Washington, D.C., Pan
American Union, 1965.
This study contains valuable information on the
history of land tenure in Guatemala and also CIDA-
generated data on recent changes in land tenure.

260. Gilberto Rios Saenz. Costos de Productos Agricolas
Financiados por el Banco Nacional Agrario. Guatemala,
1968.
Time frame: 1967(?).

261. Frederico Fahsen, Ricardo Goubaud, and Andrew J. Sherman.
Summary of the Study: The Process of Urbanization and its
Impact on a Developing Economy Guatemala. Guatemala,
July 1973.
This is a summary of a larger, multi-volume report
made under an AID contract.

262. Basic Village Education. Questionnaire of base-line
interview and follow-up interviews.
Details of (262) through (266) supplied by Dr. Howard
E. Ray, Program Leader, Guatemala. The BVE is an experimental
program currently operating in two areas of Guatemala: (1)
a southeast Highlands area, largely Ladino by population, and
(2) an altiplano area, largely Indian. It is a valuable source
of data for two reasons: (1) it has a heavy evaluation
component, and (2) the sample for evaluation is limited to
small farmers. It is still fairly recent,'however, as it
has operated in area (1) just 2 years now, and in area (2)
6 months.








81.


Methodology: Panel approach. The aim is to arrive at a
sample size of about 100 for each of the four groups in
each area at the end of the experiment. The four groups
are: (1) group exposed to purposive radio broadcasts; (2)
group exposed to purposive radio broadcasts plus action of
monitors; (3) group exposed to purposive radio broadcasts
plus action of monitors plus agricultural technical assistance
in the form of demonstration plots; and (4) control group.
The sample is chosen from the population of adult male heads
of households who have decision control over an (owned or
rented) operational holding of between 0.5 and 12.0 manzanas.
The four sample groups are kept distinct by their geographical
separation within each area of the experiment, as in
different valleys.
The base-line interview is administered to the entire
sample at the beginning of the experiment. Follow-up inter-
views of the entire sample are done each year, using the
same questionnaire.
Data processing and analysis are currently in the
hands of the University of Florida, Tampa and Gainesville,
under AID contract. Duplicate tabulations are shipped to
BVE, Guatemala. Analysis reportedly includes efforts to
construct indices of change. So far, 63 "evaluation reports"
on specific correlations of variables involved and 4
"working documents" have been produced. The latter are:
Basic Village Evaluation. Guatemala Evaluation Reports.
Working Paper No. 1. The General Characteristics of Subsis-
tence Farmers in the Department of Jutiapa, Guatemala. Tampa,
Florida: University of Florida, Oct. 1974.
Working Paper No. 2. The Agricultural Character-
istics of Subsistence Farmers in the Department of Jutiapa,
Guatemala. Tampa, Florida: University of Florida, Feb. 1975.
Working Paper No. 3. Evaluation of Changes in
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices among Subsistence Farmers
in the Department of Jutiapa, Guatemala: A Time Sampling
Methodology. Tampa, Florida: University of Florida, May 1975.
Working Paper No. 4. Summary of the 1974 Year-End
Survey of Subsistence Farmers in the Quezada Experimental
Area. Tampa, Florida: University of Florida, Dec. 1975.

263. Production Questionnaire.
A one in four or five sub-sample of the sample in (262)
is interviewed as soon as possible after the harvest to
determine crop output per farm.

264. Radio Listener Survey Questionnaire.
Information is obtained on what radio programs the
interviewee listens to, likes, why, etc. The sample for
this survey is not limited to the sample in (262). Fre-
quency: three or four times per year in each of the two
areas of the experiment.








82.


265. Weekly Report from Monitors.
These forms are one means for generating feedback
from monitors and the agronomists who provide technical
assistance. The form is a brief, 3-page one with open-
ended questions on environmental factors (e.g. presence
of drought in the experiment area), prevailing prices,
farmer comments picked up in weekly sessions, etc. Other
feedback generators are tape recordings made by monitors,
and Friday meetings of monitors with the field agronomist
in their area.

266. Direct Test of Felt Need for Education.
Since Oct. 1975 the experiment has been using a direct
test of felt need for education, including measurement of
visual and audio messages, applied at farmers' meetings and
individually.

267. Guatemala. Sector PGblico Agricola. Ministerio de Agri-
cultura. Direcci6n General de Servicios Agricolas (DIGESA).
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Rural. Ficha de Identificaci6n
del Agricultor Participante.
This is a tightly-spaced, two-page form consisting of
data blanks used by DIGESA in 1974 and 1975 (and planned
for use in 1976) to obtain data from its agents in the
field, who are called promotores de producci6n agricola.
There are presently 244 of these. The use of the form was
explained by Dr. Sterling Nichols, adviser, DIGESA, Guate-
mala, who also made available the relevant instruction sheets.
DIGESA looks on its data collection system essentially
as a management tool. The cataloguing of information is one
of the routine tasks of the promoter in his field work.
DIGESA works with farmers who have operational holdings of
less than 30 ha. and who have a farm plan worked out in
conjunction with the promoter. These number about 20 per
cent of the total number of farmers in the case of corn
growers. Three phases of farmer development are distinguished
and DIGESA aims to put every farmer it works with through
the three phases. Up to this year, however, it has worked
only with farmers in the second phase. Beginning this year,
a new system will be implemented covering all three phases
and data collection will involve sampling farmers in each
phase. In the case of farmers in the first phase, each
promoter will work with 120 to 180 farmers. In the case of
farmers in the second phase, each promoter will work with
about 70 farmers.
The ficha (267) will be filled in for sample farmers
in all phases on the basis of interviews with the operator.
Additionally, separate forms will be used for farmers in the
three phases beginning in 1976 (see (268), (269), (270),'
and (271)).
The data obtained for 1974 and 1975 were found to be of
such poor quality as to be a "wipe-out," according to Nichols.





83.


268. Report de Actividades. Fase de Formaci6n. Proyecto
Agricultores. No. 3.
This is a crop reporting form. The sample for the
information on this form is drawn from the four to six
groups of 30 operators which each promoter is responsible
for in this, the first, phase. The data on the form relate
to one such group and the form provides space for the
"aggregated total in hectares of all the areas that the
members of the group possess individually" (I take this to
mean "operate"), the aggregated area sown to the crop
indicated at the top of the form, the aggregated area of
this crop "maintained," and the aggregated area of this
crop harvested.

269. Report de Actividades. Fase de Promoci6n. M. No. 4.
The sample of farmers in this, the second, phase is
drawn rather differently. Each promoter works with 60 to
70 farmers. Of these he is responsible for selecting a
sample of 16 (M = muestra). Again, the form covers one
crop, indicated at the top, but this time the information
relates to an individual cultivator. The promoter is
instructed to select his sample of 16 in proportion to the
area sown to each crop: e.g. if corn, beans, rice and sorghum
are all sown to equal areas, he will select four farmers
to represent each crop; if there are five crops sown, he
will select four farmers to represent the most important
crop and three to represent each of the other four. The
Sdata to be collected here include not only areas but also
use of inputs by quantity (including labor and credit) by
each operator. On the other hand, the form contains no
space for yield or output information. The form also pro-
vides for official sanctioning of BANDESA credit in
specific amounts for specific uses in connection with the
cultivation of this crop by the sample farmer.

270. Report de Actividades. Fase de Promoci6n. FM. No.
I--A.
For the 44 to 54 operators excluded from the sample
(FM = fuera muestra) in (269), the only information re-
quired is the area sown and the total credit received,
for the recording of which the promoter has the choice of
listing them singly or as a group by crop; in the latter
case he must still list the names of all the operators in
the group. This form also has space for official sanctioning
of production credit from BANDESA.

271. Report de Visita al Agricultor. Fase de Seguimiento.
M. FM. (check one). Fase de Formaci6n. M. No. 5.
Here we are back to the first phase. The promoter is
instructed to select a sample of 6. The form is for an
individual grower of one crop, unlike the collective form
of (268).
This form also doubles for reporting data on a sample
of farmers in the third phase. Each promoter works with
about 150 operators in this phase. He has the choice of





84.


recording data individually or collectively; in the
latter case he must select a farmer who he thinks "is
representative of the same group." The total sample size
is 16 farmers, covering all represented crops. For non-
sample farmers, only a portion of the data series are
required.

272. Fase de Seguimiento. Unidad de Cooperativas. No. 6.
This is a form to be filled in by the promoter with
the cooperative as the unit of reference.

273. Unpublished data on small farmers.
The data here correspond to the data generated by
(267), and relate to 1972 and 1973. The quality is said by
Nichols to be good. Notes were taken for inventorying pur-
poses from computerized tabulations rather than from question-
naire.

274. Guatemala. Sector Publico Agricola. Institute Nacional de
Comercializaci6n Agricola (INDECA). Encuesta de Producci6n
de Granos Basicos. INDECA-UPE-260-75. Questionnaire dated
Sept. 2, 1975.
Information supplied by Otto Rene Celada C., Unidad de
Programaci6n, INDECA, Guatemala. INDECA, the government
cereals purchasing and marketing agency, has since 1971
carried out a twice-yearly national sample survey of pro-
duction of basic grains covering all departments except
the Peten. Each survey gathers data on the previous harvest
and forecasts of the coming harvest of corn, beans, rice
and sorghum.
Method: interviews of cultivators using a simple, 2-page
questionnaire. Sample size: about 4,200. Sampling method:
the country is divided into four ecological zones, roughly
corresponding to the four points of the compass. A number of
attributes (e.g. simple vs. multiple cropping; human vs.
animal vs. mechanical traction) are used to classify farms
growing basic grains, and then from this "mosaic" a total
of 30 farms are selected to represent each group of attri-
butes. The sample is scattered about the country using
inference from the 1964 agricultural census (210), and
307 municipios are included. About 20 per cent of the sample
is formed of parcelamientos. Randomness of the sample is
achieved by interviewing small farmers at the entry points
to market towns; large farmers, however, are interviewed on
their farms. The survey is carried out in July-August and in
November-December. Speed of obtaining results is considered
to be important. A professional staff of 5 enumerators takes
an average of 15 days to complete the field work. Tabulation
by manual means takes another 15 days on average.





85..


In comparison with the sample used by the DGE (see
description under (251)), INDECA's sample covers a larger
number of municipios but has a smaller number of sample
farms. Celada's view is that the construction of the sample
frame is the most important problem in carrying out a
production survey in a country of heterogeneous producers
like Guatemala. He believes that to be valid a sample segment
should consist of no more than 20 cultivators. He says
INDECA is going to experiment with the DGE's sampling
method for carrying out the July-August 1976 survey, but
he is not too hopeful of improvement. He says INDECA is
also talking to the Instituto Nacional de Geografia about
the possibility of using aerial photography to construct the
sample frame.
As a matter of interest, I asked Celada for his estimate
of the proportion of total production of basic grains in
Guatemala accounted for by small farmers. For corn, he
said it had been 95 per cent up to 1975, when a combination
of shifting land on the south coast out of cotton and into
corn production and the opening of newly cleared lands
in the Peten had resulted in a lowering of this figure to
about 80 per cent in the 1975 1976 agricultural year.

275. Encuesta de Producci6n de Granos Basicos. INDECA-
UPE-260-75. El Peten. Questionnaire dated Sept. 2, 1975.
During the 1975 1976 agricultural year INDECA
carried out a survey of basic grains production in the
*department of El Peten, using the same questionnaire as
(274). Sample size: 4,430 cultivators. Numerous problems
were encountered and Celada considers the data obtained
of doubtful reliability.

276. Roy A. Clifford and Erwin Flores J. Algunos Aspectos de
las Migraciones de los Beneficiarios de Transformaci6n
Agraria de Guatemala. Guatemala: Instituto Interamericano
de Ciencias Agricolas (IICA), Direcci6n Regional para la
Zona Norte, 1972.
Study of beneficiaries of land redistribution based
on data collected and supplied by the Departamento de
Colonizaci6n y Desarrollo Agrario, Instituto Nacional
de Transformaci6n Agraria (INTA), Guatemala.

277. Institute de Nutrici6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).
Oficina de Investigaciones Internacionales de los Institutos
Nacionales de Salud (EEUU). Ministerio de Salud Publica y
Asistencia Social. Evaluaci6n Nutricional de la Poblaci6o
de Centro Am6rica y Panama: El Salvador. INCAP V-26. N.p.,
1969.
Time frame: Sept. Nov. 1965. Sample size: 3,231
individuals, or 1.1 per cent of the total population of
El Salvador.







86.
278. Wilbur Jimenez. Chap. IV. Movimientos Migratorios Internos
Registrados por el Censo de 1950. Aumento de la Poblaci6n
durante el Periodo Comprendido entire 1927 y 1950.
A study of migration in Costa Rica based on census data.

279. "Esquema de la Evaluaci6n Demografica de Costa Rica."
Revista de Estudios y Estadisticas (San Jose), No. 1 (1961),
pp. 5-14.

280. Richard N. Adams. Migraciones Internas en Guatemala;
Expansion Agraria de los Indigenas Kekchles hacia El
Pet6n. Guatemala: Centro Editorial "Jose de Pineda
Ibarra," Ministerio de Educaci6n, 1965.

281. Richard P. Applebaum. San Ildefonso Ixtahuac6n, Guatemala:
Un Estudio sobre la Migraci6n Temporal, Sus Causas y Conse-
cuencias. Guatemala: Seminario de Integraci6n Social
Guatemalteca, 1967. Cuaderno 17.

282. Jorge Arias B. "Aspectos Demograficos de la Poblaci6n
Indigena de Guatemala." Boletin Estadistico (Guatemala,
DGE), No. 1-2 (1959), pp. 18-38.

283. "Migraci6n Interna en Guatemala." Estadistica
(Washington), Sept. 1962.

284. "La Concentraci6n Urbana y las Migraciones Internas."
Problems de la Urbanizaci6n en Guatemala. Guatemala:
Seminario de Integraci6n Social Guatemalteca, 1965, Pp.
19-45.

285. Susan N. Oxnard. Expanding Settlements in the Pacific
Lowlands of Guatemala. Unpublished master's thesis for
Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, 1968.

286. Roy A. Clifford. El Estudio de la Situaci6n Social de la
Comunidad Rural de Nueva Concepci6n, Guatemala. Guatemala:
IICA, 1968.
A confidential study of a large parcelamiento of
about 35,000 inhabitants using .interviews with questionnaire
done for the Guatemalan government.

287. Roy A. Clifford and Gregorio Alfaro. Informe de la In-
vestigaci6n Preliminar Socio-Econ6mica para el Proyecto
Piloto de Cooperativas Rurales. San Jos6: Banco Nacional
de Costa Rica, Publicaci6n No. 10, 1955.

288. Roy A. Clifford, Neptali Monterroso, and Francisco Vera
L6pez. Estudio Sociol6gico de la Finca Sabana Grande,
Departamento de Escuintla, Guatemala. Guatemala: IICA, 1968.








87.


289. Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola (CIDA).
Inventario de la Informaci6n Basica para la Programaci6n
del Desarrollo Agricola en la America Latina: Centroamerica.
Washington: Pan American Union, 1965.

290. El Salvador. Institute de Colonizaci6n Rural, Departamento
Social. Estudi' Socio-Economico, Hacienda La Reforma. San
Salvador, 1966.

291. Humberto Flores Alvarado. Las Migraciones Internas en
Guatemala. Guatemala: Instituto Indigenista, 1961. (Mimeo)

292. Miguel Angel Funes C. Movimiento Migratorio. Honduras,
March 1968. (Typescript)

293. Honduras. Institute de Investigaciones Econ6micas y
Sociales. Tierras y Colonizaci6n. Tegucigalpa: Universi-
dad Nacional Aut6noma de Honduras, Facultad de Ciencias
Econ6micas, 1961.

294. Charles 'P. Loomis and Reed M. Powell. "Sociometry Analysis
of Class Status in Rural Costa Rica: A Peasant Community
Compared with an Hacienda Community." Sociometry, 12.

295. Sanford A. Mosk. "Economia Indigena en la America Latina."
Cultura Indigena de Guatemala. Guatemala: Seminario de
Integraci6n Social Guatemalteca, No. 1, 1959, PP. 67-99.

296. Raymond Stadelman. "Maize Cultivation in Northwestern
Guatemala." Contributions to American Anthropology and
History, VI (33), June 1, 1940, pp. 82-263.

297. M. Tosco et al. Aprovechamiento y Dominio de las Tierras
en 1950-51. Tegucigalpa: Banco Central y Banco Nacional
de Fomento, 1951.

298. B. O. Williams. The Subsistence Agriculture of Lake Yojoa.
Tegucigalpa, 1957.

299. Oscar Arguedas Madrigal. Costos de Producci6n de Frijol
en Tres' Tipos de Siembra en la Zona de Alajuela. Unpub-
lished thesis for the Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad
de San Carlos de Guatemala, 1971.

300. Jose Francisco Castillo Cajas. Estudio Econ6mico de la Mano
de Obra en la Finca Sabana Grande. Unpublished thesis for
the Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad de San Carlos de Guate-
mala, 1971.

301. Roberto Fonseca Robles. Estudio Econ6mico del Parcelamiento
"Los Angeles". Unpublished thesis for the Faculty of Agronomy,
Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, 1973.






88.


302. Flavio Rodolfo Leal L6pez. Municipio de Cabrican -
Quezaltenango. Tema: Estructura-y Grado de Desarrollo.
Sub-Tema: Artesania. Unpublished thesis for the Faculty
of Economic Sciences, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala,
1973.

303. Meyer Solano Conejo. Estudio Agro-Econ6mico de Una
Unidad de Productores de Campesinos. Unpublished thesis
for the Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad de Costa Rica,
1966.

30h. Alvan 0. Zarate. Principales Patrones de Migraci6n Interna
en Guatemala, 1964. Guatemala: Seminario de Integraci6n
Social Guatemalteca, 1967.

305. Alfred John Hagan. An Analysis of the Hand Weaving Sector
of the Guatemalan Economy. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Texas, 1970.
A study based on interviews with owners and owner-
operators of artesanal weaving firms using questionnaire.
QI.

306. Ridgway Satterthwaite. Campesino Agriculture and Hacienda
Modernization in Coastal El Salvador: 1949 to 1969.Unpublished
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971.

307. Lawrence H. Feldman. A Tumpline Economy: Production and
Distribution Systems of Early Central-East Guatemala.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Pennsylvania State University, 1971.

308. Gary Howland Smith. Income and Nutrition in the Guatemalan
Highlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Economics, University of Oregon, 1972.
The study states: "During the months of October, November,
and December 1969, and at various times during 1970, the
writer interviewed a number of farmers in the Guatemalan
Highlands departments of Chimaltenango and Sacatepequez.
The purpose was to determine what systeamtic relationships
exist between levels of per capital income and the amount
consumed per capital of specific foods regularly eaten by
members of farm families near the level of subsistence."
QI. Sample size: 55.

309. Carlos O'B. Fonck. Modernity and Public Policies in the
Context of the Peasant Sector: Honduras as a Case Study.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1972.
A careful and innovative analysis based largely on the
rural portions of the data contained in (170). The writer's
major hypothesis is the following: "Significant political and
technical conflicts---sources of social strain---can be
identified by examining the characteristics of the peasant
sector and of its linkages with other socio-economic strata
in the light of the current agricultural policy. This
hypothesis carries the assumption that the limits to
agricultural modernization are primarily social, not
physical or biological." (p. 64)






89.


310. James Robert Taylor, Jr. Agricultural Settlements
and Development in Eastern Nicaragua. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968.
A study based on interviews with persons in 272
farm units in the Rama area, average per capital income
$98.

311. Guatemala. Ministerio de Salud Publica. Directorate
of Planning, Evaluation and Statistics. Unpublished data
in files.
These data include morbidity and mortality data
from rural areas at municipio level.

312. Guatemala. Ministerio de Salud PGblica.
Paramedical auxiliaries perform a village survey as
part of their training at the training school at Quirigui
and also survey the village they are assigned to on their
arrival there. Consequently, there exists a body of data
in the files of the health centers, area chiefs, etc.
of the ministry giving infrastructural data of a large
number of villages.

313. Guatemala. Institute de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas
ICTA). Secci6n de Socioeconomla Rural. Unpublished data.
Information supplied by Dr. Peter Hildebrand. Since
1975, this section of ICTA has been building a wealth of
information on small farmers in Guatemala. The basic
purpose of the information is to allow ICTA to design
cropping systems that stand a chance of being adopted by
small farmers. For this purpose the data are of a micro
nature and cover a wide range of socioeconomic variables.
Method:-The focus is on the cropping system of the
marginales, or marginal farmers. A team of the section
arrives in a region with the purpose of making a sondeo,
looking particularly for a traditional, relatively homo.-
geneous agriculture manifested by existing cropping
practices so as to get at a similar group of constraints
in operation (e.g. resources, social barriers). This
sondeo in effect serves to delimit the population to be
investigated.
From this population, a sample is selected. The ap-
proach is closer to the case study than the large-sample
survey. Members of the team go through the entire cropping
season with individuals in the sample, noting down the
practices, calendar followed, etc. Why does the farmer
do what he does? Is planting labor the most constraining
factor? Or is he merely following tradition? The members
use a questionnaire to elicit data, but try to keep their
talks with farmers informal, using a tape recorder, in
some cases to preserve the farmer's own words without the
formality of taking notes on what he says. The data col-
lected include some on diet, and Hildebrand says the
family's consumption of tortillas and beans provides a good
rough indicator.







90.


In a second phase, team members give the sample
farmers a single sheet containing data spaces to be
filled in,making entries daily. ICTA summarizes the
recording sheets monthly, and tabulates them on a
crop by crop basis annually.
A further source of information are the records
kept by the ticnicos who constitute ICTA's production
teams. The focus is on improving productivity per man,
and improving the productivity of labor used in planting
especially.
The data are being tabulated manually and will
appear in ICTA's reports and publications.
It seems clear that ICTA's main emphasis is on the
"subsistence" crops. Hildebrand says ICTA's sample
estimates of production of these crops have compared
favorably with INDECA's (see (274)), in the relatively
few areas where ICTA has collected such data so far.
Carl Koone, USAID/Guatemala, ranks ICTA's emphasis as
follows: 1. corn and beans; 2. rice and sorghum, 3. vege-
tables and swine.

314. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) U.S.C.C. Central American
Regional Training Program for Workers in Preschool Feeding
Programs. Part I. General Report. 1972.
This reports the results of a 1969 survey of the
nutritional status of 820 children aged 6 months to 5
years who were from the worse-off sections and of a
follow-up survey in 1970 of 468 of the same children,
the data being recorded at feeding centers in Guatemala,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Data
series include dietary information, medical histories,
results of physical exams, clinical tests, and anthropo-
metric measurements (using INCAP standard weights as
reference). Also Gomez classification.






























LOCATION OF PRINTED SOURCES




92.


1-6
7,9,10
11, 98,169,
244,277
12-16
21,25,26
22-24
27,28
32-44
51-59
62
65
66-68
17, 71
72-83
84
90-96
99,101,124
104
97
106-109
111-114
115
116
98,117,120-2
118
119
123
125-129
130-131
132
135-137
138

139-140
141
142-146,148
147
150
151
152-154
155, 159-63
156
157
158
164-165
166
167
168

170
171-5,179-87
178


Biblioteca, DGEC, C. 2 A. 6, San Jos6.
SAID, RDO, San Jose.
National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Md. 20862;
and INCAP, Carretera Roosevelt, Zona 11, Guatemala.
SAID, RDO, San Jos6.
SAID, RDO, San Jose.
Biblioteca, IICA, Turrialba.
MAG, San Jos6.
MAG, San Jos6.
ITCO, San Jose.
Office of Prof. Cespedes, Fac. Ecs., U. of C.R, San Jos6.
IFAM, C. 1 A. 3, San Jos6.
MSP, San Jose.
CELCA, San Jose.
ACM, San Jose.
Office of Dr. Boynton, CATIE, Turrialba.
USAID, RDO, Managua.
DIPSA, Km. 12, Carretera Norte, Managua.
OCE, Managua.
INCEI, Managua.
USAID, Program Office, Managua.
MAG, Km. 12, Carretera Norte, Managua.
USAID, Education Office, Managua.
UASS, Managua.
USAID, Public Health Office, Managua.
Dr. Hidalgo's office, MAG, Km. 12, Carretera Norte, Man.
FUNDE, Managua.
USAID, Mr. H. Bustamente, Program Office, Managua.
DIGESTYC, Biblioteca, C. Arce 953, San Salvador.
MAG, DGEA, DEA, San Salvador.
USAID, Agriculture Office, San Salvador.
MAG, DGRD, San Salvador.
Dr. Cutie's office, U.Centroamericana Jose Sime6n
Cafas, San Salvador.
IICA, San Salvador.
Biblioteca, Fac. Ci. Agr., U. El Salvador, San Salvador.
USAID, Education Office, San Salvador.
DIGESTYC, San Salvador.
BFA, C. 6 Poniente A. 15 S., San Salvador.
MSPAS, OE, 15 A. Sur 11, San Salvador.
USPHS, CDC, Atlanta.
MAG, DGRD, San Salvador.
BC, San Salvador.
MAG, OSPA, San Salvador.
FOCCO, San Salvador.
CRS, San Salvador.
DIGESTYC, San Salvador.
Biblioteca, CONAPLAN, Casa Presidencial, San Salvador.
MRN, DPS, DEAEA, Blvd. Toncontin, Edificio Desagro
Casa No. 1534 (frente euracao), Comayaguela.
USAID, Health Office, Tegucigalpa.
DGEC, Comayagiela.
ATAC, Banco Nacional de Fomento, 7th flr., ComayagGela.









176,177
189
190,191
193
194-196
197-198
199

201-204
205
206
207
208
210-214
215
216-18
219
221
222-238
239
240-241
242
246-247
248,274-5
249-50
251-256
258-261
262-6
267-273
276-298
299-303
305-310
311-312
313
314


93.
DGEC, Biblioteca, Comayaguela.
PANI, 3 A. 4 C., Tegucigalpa.
IISE, 4 C. 4+5 A., Altos de la Urbana, Tegucigalpa.
CN, Tegucigalpa.
USAID, Education Office, Ave. La Paz, Tegucigalpa.
MRN, DPS, DASA, Blvd. Toncontin, ComayagGela.
Office of P. Lucas, Edificio Jimenez Talavera, 2nd.
flr., 8 A. 11+12 C., Conayagiela.
MPH, DN, Tegucigalpa.
UNAH, Tegucigalpa.
USAID, Education Office, Tegucigalpa (typescript).
Casa Cural, Choluteca.
FUNHDESA, 4 C. 4+5 A., Altos de la Urbana, Tegucigalpa.
DGE, Dept. Censos y Encuestas, Aurora, Zona 13,Guatemala.
USAID, RDO, Office of Carl Koone, Guatemala.
INCAP, Carretera Roosevelt, Zona 11, Guatemala.
LTC, U.Wis., Madison.
Office of T. Farrell, INCAP, Guatemala.
INCAP.
USAID, RDO, Office of Carl Koone, Guatemala.
DIGESA, 12 A. 19-01, Zona 1, Guatemala.
LA/DR, AID/Washington.
CNPE, Banco de Guatemala, Zona 1, Guatemala.
INDECA, 11 C. 3-23, Zona 9, Guatemala.
ROCAP Library, Guatemala.
DGE, Punto Focal Nacional, 8 A. 9-12, Zona 1, Guatemala.
ROCAP Library, Guatemala.
BVE, 2 A. 8-53, Zona 1, Guatemala.
DIGESA, 12 A. 19-01, Zona 1, Guatemala.
IICA, DRZN, 8 C. 1 A., Zona 9, Guatemala.
Biblioteca, Fac. Agronomia, U. San Carlos de G., Guatemal
ROCAP Library, Guatemala.
MSP, Guatemala.
ICTA, Sal6n Internacional, Zona 13, Guatemala.
CRS, 11 A. 31-86, Zona 5, Guatemala.




























VI

LOCATION OF DATA










4 5 47,50
85-8,127
130-131

9
125,126,129,
142-4,166
135-6
150
152-4
159
177
179,181-6

170
180
197
206
215
216-8,222-38
239
240-241
242
11,98,169,
243,244,277
245
311


95.

LADB, U. of Florida (computer tapes).
11 it I It
MAG, San Salvador (Data just starting to come in
from preliminary surveys).
AITEC, San Jose.

DIGESTYC, San Salvador.
MAG, San Salvador.
Files, BFA, San Salvador.
USPHS, CDC, Atlanta.
MAG, San Salvador.
LADB, U. of Florida.
DGEC, Comayagiela (Files of completed questionnaires
are stored in a 2nd. flr. room marked "Archivos"
DGEC, Comayagiela (computer tape).
Office of Felipe Vinicio Espinoza Guzman, BCH,5th Flr.
MRN, DPS, DASA, Comayagiela (cards + orig. questionnaires
INCAP, Guatemala.
AID/Washington (on tape).
INCAP, Guatemala.
ATAC, 7655 Old Springhouse Rd., McLean, Va. 22101.
DIGESA, Guatemala.
CNPE, Guatemala; AID/Washington.

INCAP, Guatemala.
LADB, U. of Florida.
MSP, Guatemala; Dr. E. Croft Long, USAID/Guatemala,
also says he has copies at home.


























VII

SOURCES OF DATA ON THE CONDITIONS

OF ESTATE AND PLANTATION WORKERS






97.


Costa Rica

1. Camara Nacional de Bananeros, San Jose. Tel. 227891
2. Camara de Productores de Cafa del Pacifico, San Jose.
Tel. 445154
3. Camara Nacional de Cafetaleros, San Jos6. Tel. 218207
4. Camara de Azucareros, San Jos6. Tel. 212103
5. Asociati6n Bananera Nacional S.A. (ASBANA), San Jose.

El Salvador

1. Compafia Salvadorefa de Cafe S.A., 2 C. Ote y 6 A. Sur,
San Salvador.
2. Cooperativa Algodonera Salvadorefa Limitada, 7 A. Norte 418,
San Salvador.
3. Cooperativa Azucarera Salvadoreha Ltd., 9 A. Norte 212,
San Salvador.

Honduras

1. Asociaci6n Hondurefa de Productores de Cafe, 6 C. 10 A.,
Tegucigalpa.
2. Asociaci6n Nacional de Campesinos Honurefos (ANACH),
San Pedro Sula.
3. Uni6n Nacional de Campesinos, 5 C. 2 A., Tegucigalpa.

Guatemala

1. Asociaci6n Nacional de Cafe (ANACAFE), Edificio Etisa,
4th flr., Plazuela Espafa, Zona 9, Guatemala.
2. Asociaci6n de Azucareros de Guatemala, 12 C. A 2-41, Zona 1,
Guatemala.
3. See reference (220).




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs