Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture

Material Information

Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture
Hildebrand, Peter E
Luna T., Edgar G
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
6 leaves : ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture -- Technology transfer ( lcsh )
Traditional farming ( lcsh )
Farms, Small ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


General Note:
"Presented at Session no. 5. "Public investment in research, education and technology", Fifteenth Conference, International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1973."
Statement of Responsibility:
Peter E. Hildebrand and Edgar G. Luna T.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
76951425 ( OCLC )

Full Text


Peter E. Hildebrand and

Edgar G. Luna T.

Presented at Session No. 5, "Public investment in research, education and technology", Fifteenth Conference, International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1973.



Peter E. Hildebrand1 and Edgar G. Lune T. 2

Idnifundios, or small subsistence or near subsistence farms, normally
absorb the majority of rural people in the developing countries of Latin America and elsewhere in the world. Although a great deal has been written about subsistence farms, and their inclusion in the development process is frequently considered, schemes to improve the individual economic situation of these farmers are mostly failures. Reasons for failure include various combinations of large numbers, isolation, low educational levels, lack of private resources, insufficient public resources, poorly planned or coordinated programs, and lack of information regarding economic constraints and requirements and optimum input and product combinations for feasible solutions to problems of the minifundistas.

Schultz's "Economic Efficiency Hypothesis''3 proposes that farmers in traditional, but stable agriculture have adjusted to their conditions in such a manner as to be economically efficient. We agree with this hypothesis which implies that no changes in input or product mix from among the alternatives historically available will result in any significant improvement in the income to the farm.

But more and more, traditional farms are being affected by new technologies. Even though many efforts are made to supply "packages" of improved techniques, it is virtually impossible to transform the traditional subsistence farm into a '"micro commercial farm" with any sort of input package. The reason is that no such package can include all the required modernizing factors in the proportions in which they are required.

It is logical to argue, as Schultz has done (p. 162 ff.), that the
introduction of a modern technique is not always profitable in any particular area because it may not be adapted, the price conditions may not be similar, risk may be increased, etc. Again, we do not disagree with these considerations. But we would argue that a more important effect is that the introduction of one or more new factors in an otherwise stable and traditional farm economy adversely influences the economic balance of the traditional factors which are not being changed.

1 Visiting Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida and Advisor to the Departamento de Economia Agricola, Centro Nacional de Tecnologla Agropecuaria, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderfa de El Salvador, C.A.
2 Economista Agricola y Decano, Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de
Nariflo, Pasto, Colombia. Details of the study not covered in this paper can be found in: Edgar G. Luna T., Estudio de la Productividad de los Recursos Agricolas en Zonas de Minifundio, unpublished M.S. thesis, Programa de Studios para Graduados, Universidad Nacional Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA), Bogota, Colombia, Feb., 1972.
3 Theordore W. Schultz, Transforming Traditional Agriculture, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn,, 1964.


The introduction of a new variety, a high analysis fertilizer, or a
potent insecticide singly, or in a package, can have such unforeseen effects as shifting labor from Stage II of production to Stage I and land from Stage II to Stage III. These shifts are so unexpected that they are seldom if ever considered when attempting to analyze the reasons for the poor performance of otherwise well planned development programs.

A study was conducted in a minifundio area of southern Colombia, near Pasto in the Department of Nariflo, which sheds some light on the nature of the problem and should be of wide interest to economists and other agriculturalists working in small farm development. In the study area traditional agriculture remains the predominant characteristic, but through the efforts of rigorous research, extension and credit programs, many new technologies are finding their way into common use. Nevertheless, farm incomes remain low. The study which is presented in this paper discovered some of the reasons -- the unforeseen consequences -- that new technologies are not having the predicted effect on farm income.

Number of Enterprises and Farm Size

Apart from the usual classification of farms based on size, it was possible in the study to separate them into specialized and diversified farms. This was done in order to analyze one hypothesis: On small farms with few resources, diversification tends to force some resources into Stage I of production (and at the same time force others into Stage III). The implication is that any combination of enterprises would result in a lower income than specialization in only one crop at a time (owing to the concave nature of the "Opportunities Curve").
Of the 108 farms (of from 1 to 20 hectares) surveyed, it was found that from among those from 1 to 5 hectares in size, two-thirds were specialized and one-third were diversified. For the farms from 5.1 to 20 hectares the proportion was reversed. This was evidence, though not conclusive, that the farmers themselves were finding our hypothesis to be true -- on the small farms, specialization tended to yield more income. The net income figures, both per hectare and per farm, corroborated this evidence. The dividing size was 10 hectares. The average net income per hectare and per farm was greater for specialized farms of 1 to 3,
3 to 5, and 5 to 10 hectares than for diversified farms. But net income was greater for diversified than for specialized farms in the 10 to 15 and 15 to 20 hectare size groups.

The smaller (1 to 10 hectares) specialized farms yielded more net income than the smaller diversified farms even though the diversified farms used more traditional (labor and seed) as well as modern (fertilizer and pesticide) inputs per hectare than the specialized farms. Considering the use of modern inputs as an indicator, the small diversified farms would be rated higher than the small specialized farms -- yet their performance on a net income basis was poorer. For farms larger than 10 hectares, the greater use of traditional and modern inputs on the diversified farms did produce more net income than on the larger specialized farms.


Factor Productivity and Stages of Production

In order to determine more precisely what the effects on factor productivity were, the area was studied on a crop by crop basis. Unfortunately, the survey was too small to allow the determination of factor productivity crop by crop for the specialized-diversified strata. Only the farm size classification could be used and this only for wheat, the most widely produced crop in the region.
Contrary to what one would expect, the smaller farms were not using sufficient labor in the production of wheat. Additional analysis revealed that the amount used during the growing of the crop was approximately correct, but the amount used during land preparation (which is closely tied to animal power) should be more than doubled. Although we found no indication that the average amount of labor used for land preparation fell in Stage I, it certainly must have been close to tle edge of Stage II.
The significant aspect of the insufficient use of labor in land preparation is that the farmers spend months in preparing land for seeding, and generally plow and harrow (with animals) three times each. (Plowing usually begins in October or November and seeding is in February and Mlarch.) Such a pattern probably was the most efficient, given the resources available before the introduction of new varieties, the fertilizers and pesticides. But these modem technologies have all been developed in association with adequate mechanized land preparation. Hence, the formerly adequate land preparation techniques now become inadequate when combined with a partial "package" of modern technology.

Apparently the productivity of the modern technology is also difficult to predict when transferred to a traditional agricultural setting. On small farms in the study area and for wheat, the quantity of seed and fertilizer used was insufficient to reach Stage II and pesticides were used in excess, the average quantity producing negative marginal productivities. On the larger farms, seed and fertilizer use was in Stage II but pesticide use still was excessive. An informed
explanation of the underuse of seed on the small farms (even though the average use corresponded to current recommendations) was that the seed used by these farmers was not of the quality used for experiments or demonstrations or even by the larger farmers. Hence, the same quantity yielded less plants per hectare than anticipated in the recommendations. Although its use on the larger farms reached Stage II, the quantity of fertilizer used was very inadequate on both the small and large holdings. Attempts to separate pesticides were not entirely adequate but indications are that insecticides were used excessively while the small use of herbicides could be increased.

Area seeded was another factor of interest in the study. The
results indicate that for wheat, the average area seeded on small farms (2.36 hectares) is less than the optimum size, but the 7.91 hectare average on the larger farms is too large. The implications of this effect are discussed in the conclusions.


In partial summary, it is evident that a reshuffling of the
proportions of the modern and traditional factors in use on these farms could increase income substantially. An increase in fertilizer and seed use accompanied by more labor in land preparation could increase production of wheat per hectare by 50 percent and the additional costs would have a
100 percent net return.
But an overriding problem with this solution is that it is doubtful
that land preparation can be markedly improved by intensifying current traditional practices. As a minimum, improved yokes for the bullocks and better implements for animal traction will have to be introduced to
the area in order to achieve a more efficient balance with the other modern techniques now being used. Possibly only mechanized land preparation will suffice.

In the Department of Narifio potatoes are an important commercial
crop, but in the study area (mnicipic of Yacuanquer) they rate much more as a subsistence crop (wheat is the main commercial crop). Nevertheless, potato production is high risk and requires more technology than wheat.

Labor used in land preparation was found to be adequate for potatoes
but an increase in labor would be desirable during the growth of the crop. Relatively large quantities of fertilizer were used (from about U.S. $ 20.00 to $ 125.00 per hectare with an average of $ 65.00) but an increase would be profitable. Pesticide use, while very comon, was found to be quite inadequate as average insecticide use did not reach Stage II.

Corn, another subsistence crop in the area, is considered inferior
to potatoes and grown usually in small plots. In accordance with its stature in importance, it receives relatively poor care and few modern inputs. Indeed, our study indicated that labor, seed, fertilizer and pesticides were all used in quantities too small to reach Stage II of production. Under the circumstances the farmers would certainly have been
better off not raising corn except that they did so as a form of insurance for home consumption.


This study, which was undertaken in a traditional agricultural
area being subjected to modern technologies through rigorous research, extension and credit programs, demonstrates thlat serious maladjustments have been created in resource combinations such that some factors of production are in Stage I and others are in Stage III. It is very likely that this maladjustment affects all traditional economies which are subjected to incomplete "packages" of modern or new techniques. But it is also very likely that it is not feasible to supply complete packages because too many factors would have to be included. One extremely important factor which is virtually impossible to include in a package (except on a very small scale) is the management capability of the small farmer.


The conclusion that must be reached is that maladjustments will always exist so long as traditional (or even non-traditional but poorly developed) agriculture is subjected to the development process.

The same conclusion holds, of course, for any economy which is not static. The difference is that in a more developed economy the changes are expected, can be predicted, and are relatively short-run -- adjustment begins as soon as the maladjustment is felt. In a traditional economy, people may well be better off than before even if their resource combination is inefficient so there is no feeling of being out of adjustment. Further, a traditional agricultural economy is seldom studied in this light; so, rarely is it determined that the factors of production are inefficiently allocated. In fact, there has never been any real development of a "Theory of Subsistence Economics" to serve as a basis for such studies.

It can also be concluded that there is a tendency toward lesser incomes on small farms which are diversified than on those which are specialized. We were unable to demonstrate in the study that this was due to a concave opportunities curve resulting from combining enterprises in Stage I of production. However, there is substantial evidence that this is indeed what happens because many factors, even on specialized farms, were shown to be in Stage I in this traditional economy which is being subjected to the modernizing process.

To be specialized does not mean that a farm can produce only one crop a year such as wheat in our study area. Nor does it mean only one crop each semester (either the same or a different crop). A few different, but similar vegetables, for instance, could probably be raised by one farmer "specialized" in vegetables without his being affected by uneconomic enterprise combinations. But to combine the vegetables with corn or wheat or even potatoes probably would mean to feel the effect of the concave opportunities curve.

Another conclusion of the study is that specialization of small farms can tend to reduce the pressure for expanding farm size in areas where population is high and land scarce. It is easier to reach the optimum area planted for one crop on a small farm than for each of two or more crops. Thus, specialization can be an important component of an agrarian reform program.


One of our recomendations deals with action programs and the other deals with research as a source of information for the action program.

Any action program oriented toward the development of small,
traditional farms in any particular area, rust consider the desirability of developing specialized farms rather than diversified farms. Even though specialized farming bears a higher risk to the producer, small farmers in our study area tended toward it. But it must be recognized that the risk factor is extremely important. When a farmer puts all his resources into the production of one crop he must be assured that a
reasonable market exists for his product and that he can purchase his


other necessities at reasonable prices when he needs them. This requires a well developed infrastructure (which was the case in our study area) and a degree of confidence in the stability of the economic system, at least in the short run. Without these assurances, it will be difficult to convince a traditionally self-sufficient farmer to specialize in the production of a single crop to increase his real income.

Accompanying any successful development program must be a carefully planned and critical research program. Besides the normal research into varieties, pesticides, fertilizers, crop croirnations and other practices, the complete research program must include continuing studies of the nature of this study to ascertain the current status of the development process and help guide the rational introduction of new technologies into traditional agriculture.


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
!-- Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture ( Book ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00075671_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xmlns:lom http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm_lom
METS:name UF,University of Florida
Go UFDC FDA Preparation Tool
METS:dmdSec DMD1
mods:accessCondition The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
mods:genre authority marcgt non-fiction
mods:identifier type OCLC 76951425
mods:languageTerm text English
code iso639-2b eng
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
mods:url access object context
mods:name personal
mods:namePart Hildebrand, Peter E
given Peter E
family Hildebrand
mods:roleTerm Main Entity
Luna T., Edgar G
Edgar G
Luna T.
mods:note "Presented at Session no. 5. "Public investment in research, education and technology", Fifteenth Conference, International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1973."
statement responsibility Peter E. Hildebrand and Edgar G. Luna T.
mods:placeTerm marccountry xx
mods:dateIssued 1973?
marc 1973?
point start 1973
mods:recordIdentifier source sobekcm UF00075671_00001
mods:recordCreationDate 061212
mods:recordOrigin Imported from (OCLC)76951425
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
marcorg FUG
mods:relatedItem original
mods:extent 6 leaves : ; 28 cm.
mods:subject SUBJ650_1 lcsh
mods:topic Agriculture
Technology transfer
Traditional farming
Farms, Small
mods:title Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture
mods:typeOfResource text
sobekcm:Aggregation ALL
sobekcm:MainThumbnail 00001thm.jpg
sobekcm:Wordmark PETE
sobekcm:BibID UF00075671
sobekcm:VID 00001
sobekcm:EncodingLevel K
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:SortDate 720258
DAITSS Archiving Information
File Technical Details
sobekcm:File fileid JP21 width 2543 height 3307
JPEG1 630 819
JPEG2 812
JP22 2531 3261
JPEG3 808
JP23 3263
JPEG4 811
JP24 2539 3267
JPEG5 810
JP25 3265
JP27 2527
JPEG7 813
METS:fileGrp USE archive
METS:file GROUPID G1 TIF1 imagetiff CHECKSUM f21f52f0df66c49ce97d70da75fc302d CHECKSUMTYPE MD5 SIZE 8428916
G2 TIF2 8d4f35117afc3d8b1c199ae432276744 8278120
G3 TIF3 cfab48de8307415712d5d84773192ad1 8321416
G4 TIF4 56606630a3527e53bd0e91d9e22eb5fd 8318516
G5 TIF5 8bf82f9b8a79eb4b92763659ac1db6ed 8313136
G6 TIF6 6d295f09fe058ad3f14487d5deec4b22 8308392
G7 TIF7 afba56d1fc948161c99c466e0e467e72 8260428
imagejp2 3433ddd7295f749629b406c774a4344a 277595
281022513b37edde8693f27926c24494 1031735
427ada8e631abd0eb678d9c6b62beee5 1037267
c0eb48867ad320619958a6dbb5777102 1036916
1f8ff2419d9ac7e6afab965344127f11 1036293
38c85b543a2bb6d4fdf6669026e75ccc 1035677
ca7158672d44d393e625abd609a355ce 705095
imagejpeg 459003d8748d80fdc7d19b26fd087f03 49598
JPEG1.2 a6ec6dec6ea5ea0fa1c9edd01155d0e1 29074
1a5a4da5a2d3e831fac965ac83d35a4f 222088
JPEG2.2 b801be58aebc4316c1b15613cb71b218 79616
e4673185b8f39a02f01bef985c476f58 215937
JPEG3.2 4507ead4aeb2363c47503758aeb90cbe 73970
96e65dd513fb49a79ad0a4a7f414e813 214169
JPEG4.2 fad851b4569a27528c2c1853e1c51ec5 73461
0b4f4addd3eaafa40b5a5a148e086744 199361
JPEG5.2 d8cb46884e9ba3c959d1b8015eff92b7 70532
950867ea5c18ef6b1e532ccd3a221715 213172
JPEG6.2 6909f871a763942ef00c00f30fc1696d 73810
e74b5e00542127802f5ba0ddc8bc56ca 85925
JPEG7.2 da769cab6e87588a9a681bb452d51bcf 38231
THUMB1 imagejpeg-thumbnails 0cb7b56edf42959a3cd959720f0ddea4 22054
THUMB2 4fa4f8614db4e40a6c7c960f2d099da1 37175
THUMB3 b617a69d245316f38b1dc185afb1fc89 34910
THUMB4 02013be810f5f8d26ec8de523d9aa63a 34720
THUMB5 8d7ea842b551f7de2df8d343a92188c9 34133
THUMB6 e36edd2faefad92b0dbaa01e6edefd08 35129
THUMB7 6ff1db4cee76051fed255a26f75d469f 24389
TXT1 textplain 6b0ab1641fb6b46342876301fa3575f5 394
TXT2 2dc255ae8bf39e36d01c47a36c35c86c 3170
TXT3 fe1b57400301f6b01b561185038da588 3296
TXT4 890b8acaac95f04a26656cd07939b8fc 3142
TXT5 91be67ba62da3103b5d68e2633f33182 2906
TXT6 cc08209ab590e21e7ed6fb0ef7cd18f3 3130
TXT7 7e247e9a0c627ce48d089affbb79dd2e 967
METS1 unknownx-mets d3f6d6d6546d9946608838f2e0a96f42 14019
METS:structMap STRUCT1 physical
PDIV1 1 Title Page
PDIV2 2 Introduction
PDIV3 Number enterprises and farm size 3 Chapter
PDIV4 Factor productivity stages production 4
PDIV5 Conclusions 5
PDIV6 Recommendations 6
STRUCT2 other
ODIV1 Main