The farm size - productivity issue
The debate on the pros and cons of land reform led to a
revival of the old debate on the relation of farm size to
productivity. Following W.W.II, the opinion was that small
holdings yielded higher productivity, while the larger the
farm, the lower the physical output and labour use. During
that time when traditional technology was employed by landlords,
large farms and smallholders alike - with only a few exceptions
- this assumption corresponded to the empirical findings.
The increase in technological changes in agriculture and
commercial farming, however, changed this picture. Using the
same technology as on the large farms, the small farms were
more productive because of greater labour input, whereas when
progressive and commercial farmers employed a higher level
of technology, the smallholders could not compete. In particular,
the rapid sequence of new technological inputs required investments
beyond the capacity of the small farmers and were also inaccessible
to them.
Today, the middle-sized farms frequently turn out the highest
productivity, while small farms are increasingly unable to
provide the cultivators' families with a decent living. With
shrinking size due to inheritance, the farmers look more and
more for additional income. Those who are successful in this
endeavor frequently lose interest in cultivation in the course
of time.
Part of this change is due to a shift in the attitude of
large landowners. Inheritance (sometimes also land reforms)
reduced the size of their property and in order to maintain
their standard, many landlords (or their sons) took up more
intensive commercial farming instead of extensive cultivation
with tenants. It is true that one can still find traditional
landlords with all the consequences of this system, but an
increasing number does what the government has asked them
to do: increase the production of food to satisfy the needs
of the urban population. As a result, one important argument
for land reform ceased to exist.
|