ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

HYV Programme Variables that Matter-A Reply

HYV Programme: Variables that Matter A Reply P K Mukherjee THIS is in response to a comment, by G Parthasarathy and D Haranatha Babu, which appeared in the June 20, 1970, issue of Economic and Political Weekly. I am glad my paper has evoked at least one critical comment from two of my colleagues. I shall attempt briefly to clear some of the misunderstanding and mis-statement of facts made by Parthasarathy and his colleague, and secondly to place a few more explanatory facts in order to bring home the point which I have made in my paper. In the first place, neither the objective of the evaluation study undertaken by the Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO), nor the purpose that I had in view in writing the paper was to controvert the view that 'the present defective (italics mine) tenurial system blocks the progress of adoption of the new technology'. Instead, what I was attempting was to find out whether the type of tenurial conditions that generally exist in the countryside had any effect on the adoption of the new technology. It will require a well-designed study to firmly establish whether 'insecure tenancy' is Conducive to or hinders the spread of the new technology. Secondly, it is not correct to state that 'if at all, the tenants covered in the PEO study look like owner- tenants'. In fact, the tenants in the PEO study include both 'pure' tenants and 'tenants-cum-owners' Similarly, the owners in the PEO study include both 'pure' owners and Wners-cum- tenants'. I shall presently give the classification that we have followed and the distribution of our sample between these two categories. Finally, Parthasarathy is not correct when he states that 'Mukherjee's inference would be warranted (a) when the tenant is a pure tenant and (italics mine) (b) when the tenant is also an owner, provided analysis is done plot-wise to differentiate between owned and leas- ed-in plots'. In fact, it would be sufficient if it could be shown that the sample of tenants that we have taken consists of proportionately larger numbers of pure tenants than of tenant- cum-owners. Incidentally, over input application, etc, the PEO study does not make any distinction between the loased-in and the owned plots mainly because the coverage of the high-yielding varieties, even of the relevant crop area, Was quite limited except probably in the case of wheat participants. It would be quite unrealistic to attempt to analyse the differential application of inputs by a tenant participant, within his own operational holding, on ieased-in and owned plots when the HYV area itself is a fraction of the relevant crop area.

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Back to Top