2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In view of the fact that this study is on managerial efficiency
under irrigated rice farming systems, an attempt has been made in this
chapter to review work reported on the following aspects related to the
study:
2.1. Concept of rice farming systems
2.2. Imgated fanning
2.3. Management, including farm manage~nent
2.4. Managerial functions
2.5. Managerial components
2.6. Managerial efficiency
2.7. Factors influencing fa.m management
2.1. CONCEPT OF RICE FARMING SYSTEMS
In a Balinese legend, Lord Vishnu, male God of fertility and
water came to provide better food for the people who had only
sugarcane juice as food. Vishnu made mother Earth give birth to rice
and then fought Indra, Lord of the heavens to force him to teach man
to grow rice. Thus, rice, as a source of life and wealth and a gift from
the Gods was born from the union of the divine creative forces
represented in earth and water. Therefore, rice was treated with
reverence and respect and its c u w e developed an elaborate
ritual.
Rice farming (cultivation) is important to a country like India,
since about 65% of its population depend on the crop for their daily
food. The country also has the world's largest rice growing area of
39.6 million hectares (ha.), followed by China(36 million ha.).
Rice cultivation in Kerala may be considered to fit into what
is termed as the Farming systems concept. Farmers typically view
their farms, whether small subsistence units or large corporations as
systems in their own right. The household, it's resources, and resource
flows and interactions at the individual farm level are together referred
to as farm systems. Individual farm systems are organized to produce
food and meet other household goals through management of
available resources. Besides cultivation of different crops and
livestock keeping, farming systems can encompass fishing, agro-
i forestry etc. Farming s:ystems also denotes a concept of mixed
farming where a mixture of various crops are grown along with
maintenance of livestock on a piece of land owned by the farmer.
1. John Dixon and Aidan Gulliver, Farming Systems and Poverty-
Improving Farmers' Livelihoods in a Changing World, F A 0 Publication,
2001, pp.6-8.
Salam and Sreekumar (1990)~ highlighted mixed farming as a
harmonious assembly of crop husbandry and animal husbandry.
Homestead farming is a system being adopted by majority of
the farmers in Kerala, wherein small sized landholdings predominate.
It has been referred to in many terms such as homestead, home
garden, household farm, homestead farming, mixed farm etc. A
typical Kerala homestead consists of a dwelling house with small
garden in front and a variety of annual and perennial crops grown in
mixture on a small piece of land.' ~ose(l991) was of the opinion that
wetlands(where rice is cultivated) adjoining to the homestead are also
a part of homesteads. The tenn extended garden was employed to
refer to such additional crop land operated by the homestead farmer.
The extended garden influences the activities of the homestead farmer
2. M.A. Salam and DSreekumar, Coconut based Mixed Farming
System to Sustain Productivity, Indian Coconut Journa1,20(10), 1990,
pp.3-5.
3. KAU, National Agricultural Research Project-Status Report of the
Central Zone, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, 1989,p.143.
4. D.Jose, Homegardens of Kerala: Small and Marginal Fanners'
Response to changes in Agrarian Structure and Environmental
Constra~nts, M.Sc(Natzonu1 Resource Management)Thesis
(Unpublished), Agricultural University, Norway,l991.
in terms of planning, resource allocation, implementation strategies
etc. The interaction of homestead and extended garden is usually of a
high degree that these two units could be viewed as a single farming
systems unit.
On a wide angle, farming in Kerala may be brought under the
broad farming systems classification of homesteads with associated
extended gardens where rice cultivation is undertaken. Usually, Kerala
farmers have a small piece of land with a house along with
coconuVarecanutI bananaivegetables/livestock/poultry etc. Adjoining
this will be the extended garden consisting of low-lying wetlands
where rice is 'ultivated. This type of a rice-centered farming systems
strategy is maintained to meet the fundamental requirements of the
farmer and his family. This is especially significant, since more than
97% of holdings in the state have an area of less than two hectares.
The income and resources generated .kom the homesteads are
primarily useful for these small-scale farmers to undertake rice
cultivation in a sustainable manner. particularly due to the high cost of
cultivation and low profitability of the enterprise,
Substantial reduction in both area and production of rice
which fonns about 90% of food grains cull.ivated in Kerala have been
reported.'.6 Farmers in the state have also shifted away from rice
farming to other more remunerative crops like coconut, banana,
arecanut, etc. ~eemoolunni( l983)~ reported shift in cultivation from
paddy to coconut during the period 1960 to 1979. Increasing cost of
rice farming and decline in profitability has been attributed as the
major reason for the change in cropping pattern(George, 1980;'
Gemoolunnl, 1983;' ~anikar,1983'?. Another practice observed in
Kerala due to low profitability from rice cultivation is that of
leaving land fallow without cultivating it(Namboodiri,l 986).11 Govt.
5. K.M.Sreenivasan, Farnl Size and Yield per Acre, Economic and
Politzcul Weekly, Special number, July, 1985, p.23.
6. P.S. George and C.Mukhejee, A Disaggregate Analysis of Growth
Performance of Rice in Kerala, Indian Journal of Agricultural
Econornit.s,31, 1986, pp.1-7.
7. Gemoolunni, Changes in Cropping Pattern in Kerala, Economic and
Political Weekly, 28. 1983, p.39.
8. P.S.George, Dilemna of Cost of Cultivation in Kerala, Economic and
Politicul Weekly, 23, 1980, p.39.
9. Gemmolunni, &.d.
11. 1.K.K Namboodiri,., Emerging Trends in Agriculture and Land
Management in Kuttanad, M.Phil. Thesis (Unpublished), Cochin
University of Science and Technology, Kcbchi,1986.
of P era la" has reported an increase in fallow land from 24000 ha.
during 1970-71 to 47605 ha. in 1987-88.
The present level of production of rice in the state is not
sufficient enough to meet the domestic requirements. Hence, people
are depending on rice produced in states like Tamilnadu, Andhra
pradesh etc. All these factors highlight the importance of increasing
production as well as reducing cost of cultivation of rice in Kerala in
order to sustain the rice farming system within the existing limitations.
This is especially relevant because the soil and climatic conditions in
the state are conducive for rice cultivation and improved farming
technology developed from agriculture research stations are available
for farmers to adopt on their farms.
2.2. IRRIGATED FARMING
Provision of irrigation water is the most important factor
controlling production of food crops in the tropics including India. In
areas where dependable inigation facilities are provided, a new type
of community takes shape due to the resultant higher land productivity
and better assurance of agricultural produce.'3
12. Government of Kerala, Timely Reporting Survey on Agricultural
Statistics. 1985.
13. M.A.Ch~nale, Irrigation for Poverty Alleviation, Water Resources
Development,Vol. 10, No.4, 1994,pp.383-389.
Recognizing the importance of imgation, huge investments
have been made in our country during the five-year plan periods to
create and utilize additional irrigation potential. Accordingly, about
three-fold increase in imgation potential has been achieved, compared
to the pre-plan periods. It has been possible to step up agricultural
productjon in irrigated areas of the country through integrated use of
high yielding varieties, water, fertilizers, plant protection measures
etc. Due to the emphasis placed on irrigation development in India,
imgation potential created has risen to about 80 million hectares by
1990 from the figure of 22.6 million hectares during 1951. Food
production has accordingly increased from 50 to 176 million tonnes
during this period. This has been mainly achieved from improvement
in per unit productivity of land through imgation and other improved
agricultural practices, since the total cropped are has increased only
marginally by 30 per cent.I4
Dant~ala(l978) '~ presented a brief review of the anatomy of
agricultural growth in India and reported that the extent of irrigation is
the main factor which explains growth rate in the country.
-. -
14. G.V.Rao, Integrated Development of lnigated Agriculture-An
Overview, Proceedings of Workshop on Integrated Development of
Irrzgated Agrrcultzrre (South Zone), Madras, Dec.1993, pp.1-8.
15. M.L.Dantwala, Future of Institutional Refonn and Technological
Change in India's Agricultural Development, Economic and Political
Weekly, Special number.1978, pp.23-24.
With regard to rice farming, about 77 million hectares(53%)
of world rice area is irrigated. 70 to 75% of world rice production
also comes from irrigated areas.''
As far as Kerala is concerned, area imgated from all imgation
sources together(1999-2000) works out to 3.80 lakh hectares. Area
under imgation for rice (1999-2000), which includes imgation for
second crop (mundakan) and third crop (punja) comes to 2.08 lakh
hectares."
2.3. MANAGEMENT
Webster's International dictionary has defined management as
the judicious use of means to accomplish ends. According to
McGregor (1 97 I),'' management is responsible for organizing money,
materials, equipment and people in the interests of economic ends.
- - .- ---
16. Intematlonal Rice Research Institute, Terminology for Rice Growing
Envrronments, Phillipines, 1984, p.6.
17. Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Kerala, @.
cit., p.18. -
18. D.M. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, Readings in
Management, DB Taraporevala Sons & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Bombay,
1971.p.35.
Johannsen and Page (1!)83)" were of the opinion that management
implies efficient use and co-ordination of resources for achieving
defined objectives. Hayrtes (1981)~' has viewed good management as
taking the right decisions at the proper time.
2.3.1. Farm management
Efferson (1953)~' has defined farm management as the
organization and operation of the farm in the context of efficiency and
profit. Harinath (1971)''' viewed farm management in terms of
decision making and implementing the decisions by farmers. Castle @
a1 (1972)~' considered farm management as decisions related to -
profitability of the farm.
- -
19. H. Johannsen and G. Terry Page, International Dictionary of
Management, Vis~on Books Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi,1983, p.390.
20. W.Haynes, Principles and Practice of Management, New Central Book
Agency, Calcutta,l981, p.2.
21. J.N. Efferson , principle.^ of Farm Management, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., NewYork,1953, p.5.
22. G.S Hannath, A Study of Management Factor in the Selected Rice
Farms in Kovur Block of' Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, M.sc(Ag.)
Thesis (Unpublished). Agricultural College and Research Institute,
Coimbatore, 1971
23. Emery N. Castle, M.H. Becker and F.J.Smith, Farm Business
Management, The Macmiliian Co., New York ,1972, p. 340.
However, Bora (1989)14 defined farm management as the
process by which fanner is able to enhance his return on a sustained
basis for attalning family goals. Ray a a1 (1987)~' also stated that all
farmers are concerned with management of a production system to get
a return from it.. Singh a1 (19941~' reported that management is an
important component influencing yield levels of paddy.
Parker gt 4 (1994)" report that farm management is
concerned with proceedures that assist farmers in allocating limited
physical, financial and human resources in order to achieve their
personal and family objectives.
From the above discussion, it may be derived that
management primarily denotes performing certain functions /activities
to achieve goals. Hence, in the present study, management by farmer
25. G.L Ray and S.P Bora, Management Development for Farmers,
Deciston, 14 (2),1987,pp.67-68.
26. I.P. Singh and S.S Grewal, Economic Efficiency in Paddy Production
in Punjab, Bihar Journal ofAgricultura1 Marketing, 2(1), 1994, pp.55-
64.
27. W. J . Parker, D.I. Gray, J.C. Lockhart and R.J. Townsley, Farm
Management Research in New Zealand and its Contribution to Animal
Production, Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal
Production, Massey University, New Zealand, 54, 1994, pp.357-362.
is considered as a set of' managerial activities undertaken by himher
to achieve the goal.
2.4. MANAGERIAL FUNCTIONS OF FARMERS
According to Heady 4 (1962);' managerial functions of
farmers include decision on crop combinations, amount of resources,
best product~on practices, profitable size of farm, utilization of
hired labour and tlming of crop production. Harinath (1 9 7 1 ) ~ ~ included
decision making, contact with extension officials, preparatory
cultivation, seeds and sowing and plant protection as management
functions of fanners.
According to Buckett (1981),~' planning and controlling of
production, financial and staff management are important farm
management functions. Eyre (1982)~' was of the opinion that the
functions of farm managers include production, finance and personnel
28. E.O.Heady and H.R.Jensen, Farm Management Economics, Prentice-
Hall Pvt. Ltd .,New Delhi, 1962, pp.2-4.
29. Harinath, CI0.d.
30. M. Buckett, An Introduction to Farm Organisation and Management,
Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981, p.3 13.
31. E.C. Eyre, .Mastering Basic Management, Macrnillan, London, 1982, p.
266.
management. Nandapurkar ( 1 9 8 2 ) ~ ~ included planning, organizing,
human relationship, supervision, communication and control as
components of management for farmers.
Cons~dering the applicability of' managerial functions under
farmer's conditions, the specific functions may be summarized as
follows: fanners need to plan, perform Labor management, financial
and information management and finally produce his crop. Hence,
managerial functions in terms of components such as planning, labour
management, financial management, information management and
production management are considered essential for farmers. The
work reported on different management components are reviewed in
the following pages.
2.5. MANAGERIAL COMPONENTS
Planning
Accordmg to ~ i n ~ h ( 1 9 7 7 ) , ~ ~ planning involves appraisal of
existing farm resources. their use pattern and efficiency, appraisal of
various product~on activities and preparing and evaluating plans for
their feasibility and profitability.
- - .-
32. C.G. Nandapurkar, Small Farmers, Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 1982.
33. I.J. Singh, Elements ojFarm Management Economics, East West Press,
New Delhi, 1977, p. 134.
Farm planning entails what is to be done, what are the
resource requirements and how to accomplish the objectives (Kahlon
and Singh, 19811.~~ According to Kay (1981) ,~~ farm planning
represents particular ways of combining or organizing resources like
land, labour and capital.
Johl and Kapur (1989)'~ described planning as the deliberate
and conscious effott of the farmer to think about farm programmes in
advance and adjust them according to new knowledge on technical
development, changes in physical and economic situations, price
structure etc.
Labour management
Hardaker a (1970)~' suggested hiring, directing and
supervising workers as the major tasks in personnel management in
farms.
34. A.S. Kahlon and Kararn Singh, Economics of Farm Management In
India: Theory and Practice, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
1981, p. 370.
35. Ronald D. Kay, Farm Management Planning, Control and
Implementatron, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Tokyo, 1981, p.370. '
36. S.S. Johl and T.R. Kapur, Fundamentals of Furm Business
Management, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1989, p.383.
37. J.B Hardaker, J.N. Lewis and C.C. McFarlane, Farm Management and
Agricultural Economics,Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1970, p.79.
According to Harsh (19~1) :~ labour management deals
with labour needs of individual enterprises, scheduling of available
labour supply, allocation of work and aspects of human relations.
Kedia (1992)~' reported that labour management relates to
human beings who are responsive, who feel, think and act. He also
mentioned that in the absence of healthy relations between the
labourers and management, even the latest technology fails to bring
desired results.
Financial Management
Johnson (1971)~"tated that functions of financial
management ~nclude financial planning, managing assets, raising
funds and meetlng special problems.
Kahlon and Singh (1981)~' were of the opinion that
management of capital resources along with its efficient organization
-- -
38. Stephen B.Harsh, Lany J. Connor and Gerald Schwab, Managing the
Farm Busmess, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981,
p. 384.
39. A.K. Kedia, Worker's Ownership and Participatory Management, Deep
and Deep Publicat~ons, New Delhi, 1992, pp.1-3.
40. Robert W Johnson, Financial Management, Allyn and Bacon Inc.,
Beston, Massachusetts,l97l,p.13.
41. A.S Kahlon and Karam Singh, &.&. p.375.
with other firm resources is very important for farmers. Massie
(19871~~ defined financial management as the operational activity of a
business that is responsible for obtaining and effectively utilizing the
funds necessary for efficient operation. The objective of financial
management IS to ensure that adequate cash is on hand to meet the
required expenditure.
Johl and Kapur ( 1 9 8 9 ) ~ ~ reported that judicious management
of farm finances is very ~mportant for increasing the income of fanner,
and financial management deals with the study of principles and
practices of financing the farm business.
Information Management
According to Johnson and Haver ( 1 9 ~ 3 ) , ~ farmers need
information on changes in price structures, production methods,
technological development behavior and capacity of people associated
with farming, as well as economic, political and social situations
42. Joseph 1,. Massie, Essentials of Management, Practice Hall Pvt .Ltd.,
New Delhi,1987, p. 301
43. S.S Johl and T.R. Kapur, a. &. p.390
44. Glenn L.Johnson and C.B Haver, Decision Making Principles in Farm
Management, Kentuky Experimental Station Bulletin, 593,1953,
pp.8-24.
in which a farm operates. Mawby and Haver ( 1 9 6 1 ) ~ ~ mentioned five
types of information essential in farm decision making, namely,
prices, production methods, technological changes, institutional
arrangements and human relations.
Olsson ( 1 9 8 8 ) ~ ~ was of the opinion that the fann manager
seeks, receives, classifies and adjusts his activity on the basis of a lot
of information concerning the developments in environment, market
signals and production techniques.
Saik~a (1994)~' said that technological developments brought
about in agricultural production have been still out of reach of the
small and marginal farmers due to problems of information
availability.
45. Russel G . Mawby and Cecil B.Haver, Types and Sources of
Information used by Farmers,A Study of Managerial Process of
Midwestern Farmers, Iowa State University Press, Amas, Iowa, 1961,
pp.24-32
46. Rolf Olsson, Management for Success in Indian Agriculture, European
Revreu o,i"Agriculturai E'conomrcs, 15 (2&3), 1988, pp. 239-259.'
47. T. Saikia, Group Management in Farming- A Case Study, Journal of
Rural Development,13(3),1994, pp.473-491.
Production Management
Hardaker a(1970)~' included what to produce and how to
produce as technical decisions of farm production. Wills (1973)~~
stated that production refers to all those activities in which the firm is
engaged in producing goods and services.
According to Osburn @ (1978),'~ production know-how,
production in time and adapting production process to changing
economic and technical conditions are the technical activities in a
farm.
Stoner (1982)" mentioned that production management
entails planning the production, establishing courses of action and
procedures to achieve objectives, organizing human and capital
resources to produce goods, directing and leading the personnel to be
productive and monitoring and controlling production.
48. J.B. Hardaker a.cd., p.83
49. Walter J.Wills, An introduction to Agri -Business Munugement, The
Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc., Illinois, 1973, p.127.
50. Donald D. Osbum and Kenneth C. Schneeberger, Modem Agriculture
Management, Reston Publishing Co. Inc., Virginia, 1978 , pp.5-15.
51. James A.F Stoner, Management, Prentice Hall Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi,
1982, p.216.
Having reviewed various managerial components, the next
attempt is to anaiyse the theoretical orientation on managerial
efficiency. The literature review given below outlines this concept.
2.6. MANAGERIAL EFFICIENCY
Marschak and Andrews (1944)~' defined managerial
efficiency as the achievement of maximum output with given inputs or
a given output with minimum inputs. Martin &(1960)'~ were of the
view that farm managerial ability consists of the ability to achieve
favourable input-output results, ability to choose optimum
combinations, ability to determine and obtain control at the lowest
cost and ability to realize profit. According to Rao (1965),'~ efficiency
in farming in a region has wide connotation. The most efficient farm
may be the one with the best cropping pattern, the one in which farmer
obtains maximum yield or one giving maximum income or the highest
return per labourer.
52. J.Marschak and W.H Andrews, Random Simultaneous Equations and
the Theory of Production, Econometrica, 12, 1944, pp.143-205.
53. Lee R. Martin, Arthur J.Contu and S.H. Singh, The Effects of Different
Levels of Management and Capital on the Incomes of Small Farmers in
the South, Journal of Farm Economics, 42 (I), 1960, pp.90-102.
54. Ramakrishna Rao, Urbanization and Efficiency in Farming, Indian
Journal of Agricultural E~;onomics, 20 (4), 1965, pp.92-96.
Radhakrishna ( 1 9 6 9 ) ~ ~ defined efficient farmer as one who
produces maximum yield per unit of input. Brittan and Hill ( 1 9 7 5 ) ~ ~
mentioned that maximum agricultural efficiency exists when the
greatest possible product is achieved from a given stock of resources.
Shanmugappa (1978)" has defined managerial ability as those
factors contributing to efficient estate maintenance with consistently
higher productivity.
According to Hales (1986):~ managerial effectiveness means
the extent to which what managers actually do matches with what they
are supposed to do.
-- -
55. D.Radha Krishna, Determination of Efficient Farmers :A Discriminant
Analysis Approach, lndian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
24(1),1969,pp.79-84.
56. D.K Bnttan and B.Hil1, Size and Efficiency in Farming, Sexon House,
Lexinton Books, 1975, p.45.
57. S. Shanmugappa, A Study on Adoption Behavior and Value Orientation
of Arecanut Growers of Shimoga District in Karnataka State, M.Sc
(Ag.) Theszs (Unpublished), University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore, 1978.
58. L.S. Hales, What 110 Managers Do? A Critical Review of the Evidence,
Journal of'Management Studies, 23(1) , 1986,pp.88-115.
Ghosh gt 4 ( 1 9 8 8 1 ~ ~ denoted managerial effectiveness as the
extent to wh~ch a manager achieves the productivity or output
requirement of his or her position.
Luo ( 19921~' stated that the focus of efficient management in
Chinese agriculture is on guiding optimal combinations of various
productive factors such as land, labour, capital and technology to
produce maximum output.
Singh (1993)~' stated that efficiency in agricultural
management implies a symbiotic relationship between administration
of the support system and adoption of improved technology and farm
management practices by the producer. He mentioned that given the
same level of' inputs and technology, efficient farm management can
make two to three fold differences in crop yield.
Bose ( 1 9 6 5 ) ~ ~ reported a positive relationship between
farming efficiency and adoption of agricultural practices by farmers.
59. P.K. Ghosh, S.D. Sharma and G.D. Raj, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of
Management (volume 5 ) , Anmol Publications, New Delhi, 1988, p.
129.
60. Y.Luo , A New Search to the Scale Efficient Management in ~ h n e s e
Agriculture, Problems ofAgricultura1 Economy, No.3, 1992,pp.23-26.
62. S.P. Bose, Socio-Cultural Factors in Farm Management Efficiency,
Indzan Journal of Extension Education, 1,1965, pp.192-199.
From the literature reviewed, there seems to be some degree
of elusiveness on the concept of managerial efficiency. Burgoyne
(1976)" stated that the vast amount of research carried out on
managerial effectiveness had failed to come out with anything
acceptable by definition or for measurement.
However, reviews on managerial efficiency reveal that the
concept relates to performance of managerial functions by the
individual (in this study, the farmer) in order to achieve the goal.
Efficiency 1s conce~ved as performing the right managerial activities
to achieve a determined goal.
Literature review on goallobjective of management by farmers
is presented in the following pages.
2.6.1. Objective of management
Suresh (1983)~' and Chari and Nandapurkar (1987)~' were
of the opinlon that hrmers should use basic business principles to
-.
63. J.Ci. Burgoyne, The Nature, Use and Acquisition of Managerial Skills
and other Attributes, Lanchester University, Lanchester, 1976.
64. K.A. Suresh, The Economics of Cardamom Plantations in Kerala,
Ph.D Thesls (Unpublished), University of Cochin, Cochm,1983.
65. A.P. Chari and G.G. Nandapurkar, A Scale to Measure Managerial
Ability of Farmers, Maharashtra Journal of Extension Education,
6,1987, pp.163-168.
, .. \, . -..-
,.. .,,.
---. . -.
maximize profit from their farms. Bora (1986prdate?l..&anagement
attributes of farmers to profitability in farming. However, Kandker
(1988)" viewed that the goal of good management is to maximize
returns.
Olsson ( 1 9 ~ 8 ) ~ ~ opined that a farmer who is able to
combine fulfillment of his own goals with basic economic goals can
be considered successful. Sarnpath ( 1 9 7 9 ) ~ ~ was of the opinion that all
studies canied out have stressed on farmer's objective as profit
realization only. He claimed that it is not the right approach where
profit-oriented as well as subsistence farmers exist.
Harsh ef 4 (1981)" mentioned that the goals of farm manager
can be profit maximization, business survival, growth, leisure, social
-.
66. S.P. Bora, Management Attributes of Farmers as Related to
Profitability in Fanning, Decision, 13(2),1986, pp.85-93.
67. Shahidur R. Kandker, Input Management Ability, Occupational
Patterns and Farm Productivity in Bangladesh Agriculture,The Journal
of Development Studies, 24(2),1988,pp.214-231.
68. Rolf Olsson, @.&.
69. R.K. Sampath, Economrc Eficiency in Indian Agriculture. Theory and
Meusuremenr, The Macmillan Co., New Delhi, 1979, p.2.
70. Harsh & @.&. p.352.
acceptance or maintenance of one's health. Johnson (1990)" indicated
that good management will always obtain a better return than poor
management using the same quantities of land, capital and labour.
Judging from the literature, there exists some difference of
opinion on the goalslobjectives of farmers. However, it is evident that
the most important objective of a private enterprise such as farming is
to realize profit or at least higher returns. The latter objective seems to
be more relevant in, the case of rice farming in a state like Kerala,
where the trend seems to be that of transformation of rice cultivation
into a subsistence venture for majority of the fanners. This is mainly
due to the high cost of cultivation and low crop productivity, resulting
in a condition of no profit. Hence, there is a decline in business
orientation for rice farmers, with many of them sustaining rice
cultivation to produce paddy for household consumption.
This permits us to consider the objective of farm management
by farmer to be that of realizing higher returns and not necessarily
profit alone. This can be achieved through reduction in cost of
cultivation and/or improvement in crop yield.
71. D.T. Johnson, The Business of Farming-A Guide to Farm Business
Management in the Tropics, Macmillan Publishers, 1990, pp. 6-7.
Hence, farmers can be considered as managers who have to
perform proper managerial functions to realize higher returns from
farming. Farmers capable of undertaking such managerial functions
can be considered to be managerially efficient.
Thus, the concept of managerial efficiency derived for this
study refers to the farmer's capability to perform managerial
functions, which would contribute to higher returns from farming.
Adoption of the managerial functions is considered to contribute to a
reduction in cost of cultivation andlor increase in crop yield, thus
helping the farmer to achieve his objective from farming. The
managerial functions to be undertaken by the farmer have been
included under five functional components of management, namely,
Planning, Labour management, Financial management, Information
management and Production management.
2.7. FACTORS INFLUENCING FARM MANAGEMENT
Under this section, studies on the relationship of various
factors with management and adoption behavior of farmers are
presented. Since studies dealing with managementlmanagerial
efficiency of farmers are few in number, factors related to adoption of
agricultural technologies are also reviewed. Two things need to be
mentioned here. In this study, adoption of agricultural technologies
such as seed, fertilizer and imgation recommendations by farmers
have been considered as indices of their managerial efficiency under
the component, namely, Production management. Many studies have
also reported a strong positive association between management and
adoption behavior of farmers. (Bhaskaran, 1979;" Sreekumar, 1985;'~
Syamala, 1 9 8 8 ~ ~ ) . The second aspect is that according to Rogers
(1983),q5 technology (innovation) includes a 'software' component
composed of information such as a conservative political philosophy,
a religious idea, management by objectives etc. Rogers has included
this component also in his studies on adoption of innovations.
- ~
72. C.Bhaskaran, A Crictical Analysis of the Interpersonal Communication
Behaviour of Small and Other Farmers in a Less Progressive and More
Progressive Village in Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu, Ph.D.
Thesis (Unpublished), University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore,l979.
73. N. Sreekumar, Comparitive Analysis of Adoption Behavior, Economic
Performance and Management Onentation of Borrowers and Non -
borrowers of Bank Credit of Calicut District in Kerala State, M.sc (Ag.)
Thesis (Unpublished), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore,
1985
74. K.S. Syamala, An Analysis of the Effectiveness of National
Demonstration Conducted by the Kerala Agricultural University, Msc
(Ag.) Thesis (ilnpublished), College of Agriculture, Vellayani,
Trivandrum, 1988.
75. Everett M. Rogers, Dzflusion of Innovations, Third Edition, The Free
Press, New York, 1983, p.41.
In vlew of the above, in the present study, the concept of
adoption may be considered applicable to managerial functions of
farmers.
Rev~ew of hterature on the factors related to
managementladoption by farmers is presented below under the heads
namely, a) Socio-economic factors b) Situational factors (those
which depict the situation in which the farmer cultivates his crop).
2.7.1. Socio-economic factors
Education
Formal education can help in acquiring relevant
informationlknowledge, which will contribute to an individual's
decision-making process.
Reddy (1983)'~ reported a positive association between
education and management orientation of fanners. Jamison @ gl
(1984)" were able to establish a positive relationship between
76. G. Kullayi Reddy, A Study on Management Orientation, Farming
Efficiency and Consultancy Pattern of Rainfed Groundnut Growers in
Kolar Distnct of Karnataka State, M.sc (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublrshed),
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, 1983.
77. D.T. Jamison and P.R. Moock, Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency
in Nepal. The Role of Schooling, Extension Services and Cognitive
Skills, World Development,l2(1), 1984, pp.67-86.
education and efficiency of farmers. Bora (1989)" found positive
relationship between returns to management and education level of
farmers. Parikh and Shah (1994)'~ observed that technical efficiency
of farmers was dependant upon education of farmers, in addition to
other factors. Pathak (1992)~' reported significant correlation between
education and management behaviour index of marginal farmers.
Income
Income is the most important indicator of the economic status
of farmer. Many studies have found income and economic status to
be positively related to adoption of agricultural practices (Sanoria,
1970:' Rajendra, 1 9 7 3 ; ~ ~ Shukla, 1975'~). Reddy (1983)'~ observed
78. Bora, p. 144
79. A Parikh and K.Shah, Measurement of Technical Efficiency in North-
West Frontier Province of Pakistan, Journal of Agricultural Economics,
45(1),1994, p.132-138.
81. Y.C Sanona, Socio-economic Factors in Adopting Farm Practices,
Rural India,33,1970, pp:85-89.
82. C. Rajendra, Socio-economic Status and Adoption of improved
Practices, Society und Culture, 4,1973,~~. 179-183.
83. S.R. Shukla, Characteristics of Farmers and Acceptance of Improved
Agricultural Practices, Society and Culture, 6,1975,pp.97- 102.
84. G.Kullayi Reddy , &.a.
significant relationship between material possession of farmers and
their management orientation.
Social participation
It refers to the process of involvement of farmers in social
organizations. Such participation would help them to interact with
other farmers and gain knowledge on agricultural management
practices. It would also help in developing a feeling of onenesslco-
operation among farmers. This is very significant in view of the fact
that rice cultivation is a farming system, which requires
groupiparticipatory approach in various agricultural management
practices, particularly irrigation.
Keddy ( 1 9 8 3 ) ~ ~ reported a significant relationship between
management orientation of farmers and their social participation.
However, ~ a r a f ( 1983 )~~ observed no relationship between the two.
85. Ibid
86. M.S. Saraf. A Study on .4doption Behaviour, Management Orientation
and Economlc Performance of Farmers in Malaprabha Command areas
in Karnataka. Msc 64g.) Thesis (Unpublished), University of
Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, 1983.
Thimmappa (1 98 1)" has reported a positive relationship
between social participation and adoption behaviour of farmers with
respect to coconut cultivation. However, Raju (1984)" observed a
negative relationship between social participation and adoption
behaviour of summer paddy cultivators.
Farming Experience
Experience in cultivation will be helpful to develop the
farmer's potential in farm management. It will help him to develop
the required managerial skills including decisions to adopt sound
agricultural practices for improving crop productivity.
Ham~lton and Byrant (1963)'~ reported that many farmers
have listed farm experience as one of the most important requirements
for success in profitable farming.
87. H. Thimmappa, A Study on Adoption Behaviour, Motivation Pattern of
Coconut Cultivators in Tumkur District of Karnataka State, M.sc (Ag.)
Thesis (Unpublished), University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore, 198 1
88. H. Raju, A Study on Extent of Extension Guidance Received by
Contact Farmers in Adoption of Selected Practices of Summer .Paddy
Cultivat~on in Mandya District, Karnataka State, M.sc(Ag.)Thesis
(Unpublished), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore,1984.
89. J.E. Hamilton and W.R. Byrant, Pro$table Farm Management, Prentice
Hall Inc., New Jersey,1963.
Orkisz (1969)~' observed that the number of years of work on
a given farm could influence the efficiency of farm operations.
Mass Media Participation
Nowadays, there is considerable coverage of agriculture-
related top~cs in various mass media channels like newspapers, radio,
TV etc. This will enable farmers to have adequate awareness, which
will be helpful in his decision-making process. Hence, this can be
expected to influence the management behaviour of farmers.
Reddy (1 983)" found significant association between
management orientation and mass media participation of farmers.
Bora (1989)'' reported a positive relationship between mass media
utilization and returns to management. Nagaraja ( 1 9 8 9 ) ~ ~ observed
significant relationship between mass media exposure and managerial
efficiency of farmers.
90. T. Orkisz, Premise for Investigating the Qualities of a Farm Manager by
the Results of his Farm, International Journal of Agrarian Affairs, 5(4),
1969,pp 131-139.
91. G.Kullayi Reddy, &.&.
92. S.P. Bora, @cA. p.148.
93. N. Nagaraja, A Study on Managerial Efficiency and Economic
Performance of Sericulhuists in Karnataka, Ph.D. Thesis
(Unpubl~shed), Un~versity of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore,1989.
Pathak ( 1 9 9 2 ) ~ ~ reported significant and positive influence of
mass media exposure on management behavior index of marginal and
small farmers.
2.7.2. Situational Factors
Cultivated area
This has a direct bearing on the farmer's economic status,
reflecting hls capacity to buy and use required agricultural inputs and
also other managerial decisions.
Walker 3 gl (1983)~' found a negative association between
land holding size and returns to management.
Reddy ( 1 9 8 3 1 ~ ~ found a positive relation ship between farm
size and management orientation. However, Sreekumar (1985)~'
observed no relationship between these two variables. Nagaraja
(1989)"' reported significant relation between land holding size and
management efficiency.
94. S. Pathak, @. &
95. T.S Walker, R.P Singh and M.J. Bhende, Mangement as a Factor of
Production in the Semi-Arid Tropics of Rural South India, .Indian
Journal oj'Agrzcullura1 Economics, 38 (3), 1983, pp.415-423.
96. G.Kullapi Reddy, . &.
97. N. Sreekumar, OJ. &
98. N. Nagaraja, a. a.
Irrigation potentiallwater availability
Under imgated farming, availability of irrigation water is a
very important element, which contributes to the farmer's managerial
decisions.
Bora (1989)'%eported that irrigation potential was positively
related to returns from farm management. However, Nagaraja
(1989)'" observed a negative relationship between irrigation potential
and management efficiency of farmers. Pathak (1992)"' opined that
irrigation potential was significantly correlated with the management
behaviour index of small farmers.
Location of water source
Location or reach of farmer's landholding on irrigation canals
in tenns of head, middle and tail reaches implies differences in water
availability. Farmers at the head reach usually receive adequate water
in a timely manner. However, tail reach farmers generally face
problems of adequacy and timeliness of water availability. Middle
reach farmers face a condition which is neither too favourable nor un-
favourable with respect to water availability.
100. N. Nagaraja, OJ. ciJ.
Hence, the significance of location is with respect to water
availability for management of imgated rice cultivation. Studies
showing the relationship between this variable and management or
adoption by farmers are not available. However, literature review on
imgation potentiallwater availability is expected to take care of this.
Madhava Chandran gl (1998) '~~ observed a statistically
significant difference in farmer's participation (which also
encompasses management aspects of farming) between head and tail
reaches of canals under Malampuzha imgation project in Kerala. This
has been attributed to water availability problems of tail reach
fanners.
Land fragmentation
Fragmentation refers to the extent to which one's cultivated
holding is situated in a discontinuous pattern. It is hypothesized that
the degree of land fragmentation would influence farm management
and managerial efficiency of farmers.
102. K. Madhava Chandran, George Mammen, K.M. Vardan and'^.^. Nandeshwar, Farmer's Participation Through Water Users'
Associations Under CADA-A Case Study in Kerala, Proceedings of
the Tenth Kerala Scrence Congress, 1998, pp. 503-505.
Binns (1966)lo3 was of the opinion that all improved changes
in agricultural methods and organizations will be greatly impeded by
irrational fragmentation. Jabarin and Epplin (1994)'04 mentioned that
land fragmentation increases production costs and decreases
efficiency in the farming sector.
Parikh and Shah ( 1 9 9 4 ) ' ~ ~ found that technical
inefficiency at the farm level is caused due to fragmented nature of
landholdings.
103. Bernard 0. Binns, Causes and Effects of Land Fragmentation, Selected
Readings to Accompany Getting Agriculture Moving,Vol.l, New
York, 1966, pp. 99-109.
104. A.S. Jabann and F.M. Epplin, Impacts of Land Fragmentation on the
Cost of Producing Wheat in Rainfed Region of Northern Jodan,
Agricultural Economzcs, 11 : 2-3, 1994, pp.191-196.
105. A. Parikh and K. Shah. 9.d