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