four decades of socioeconomic studies in a rice village in east laguna

8/2/2019 Four decades of socioeconomic studies in a rice village in East Laguna

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/four-decades-of-socioeconomic-studies-in-a-rice-village-in-east-laguna 1/49

Kei Kajisa

IRRI Rice Seminar Series

Current position

• Senior Scientist (Agricultural Economics)

Education and training•Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

•Ph. D. in Agricultural Economics, 1999

•Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan

•Master of Arts in International Economics, 1993

Work experience •International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, the Philippines

•Senior Scientist (Agricultural Economics) 2009 – Present•Scientist (Agricultural Economics) 2006-2009

•Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development (FASID), Tokyo, Japan

•Faculty Fellow, GRIPS/FASID Joint Graduate Program (2000-2009)

•National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), Tokyo, Japan

•Associate Professor, GRIPS/FASID Joint Graduate Program (2000 – 2009)

• The World Bank, Washington D.C., USA

•Consultant, Development Economics Group (1998-2000)

Research highlights

•Green revolution in Asia and its transferability to Africa:

•The evolution of agricultural systems in Tamil Nadu, India.

•Potential and Constrains of rice Green Revolution in Mozambique and Tanzania

•The role of community mechanisms in natural resource management

•Collective management of tank irrigation in Tamil Nadu, India

•Adoption of water saving technology under different institutional settings in China and the

Philippines



Four Decades of

SocioeconomicSurvey in a Rice

Village in East Laguna

Kei Kajisa

IRRI SSD

IRRI Thursday Seminar

March 29, 2012 East Laguna village in the early 70s.



The study

village



Four decades mean…

2008 After Rice Price Crises



Terminology

Land holding status

Land owner

Landless

Farming status

Landlord

(Absentee landlord)

Landlord-farm-operator

Tenant Farmer/Farm operator

Ag. Labor/hired labor (no

management task)

Farmer/Farm-operator



Interactions of 5 Modernization Forces

• Resource endowment

– Population pressure (advanced med and pub. Health)

• Agriculture

– Green Revolution (scientific ag.)

– Land reform (social reform against the past colonialism)

• Public investments

– Development of irrigation, roads, and schools

• Globalization

– Non-farm activities (easier link to foreign markets)

Farming and Livelihoods of rural people

Intensive, continuous monitoring of one village as one

social observatory



13-round IRRI-SSD surveys

19741966

Umeharasurvey

1st IRRI SSD survey

IR8 1980

• Green Revolution

• Land reform

•High ways

(Lost Decade)

•FDI and factories in Laguna area

• Population

pressure

1950s

1958

1962

1958•NIA Irrigation

system

•Land

frontier

s closed

•Barrio school1965Country road

• Masagana 99

2007

Latest IRRI SSD

survey

2011

•NIA system

Rehabilitation

1999•Opening of sub-

division

2006 TyphoonMilenyo



Initial Condition of the Village

• Began to be settled in the 1880s.

• Rainfed rice monoculture

• Sharecropping contract (landlords in local

towns nearby) 50:50 share

• No significant class differentiation w/in the

village (all are poor)

First wave of modernization: pop growth



Growth of population and rice land, East Laguna Village,

1918-1997

Total Population (100 persons)

0

3

6

9

12

15

1918 1940 1960 1966 1974 1976 1980 1983 1987 1995 1997

Year

0

24

48

72

96

120Population/land ratio (Persons/ha) Paddy area (ha)

Total Population

Population/ha

Paddy area(ha)

Source: Hayami and Kikuchi (2001)

Population Pressure on Land



1966 1976 1987 1995 2007

Total

Non FarmWorker

AgriculturalLaborer

Farmer

Household

70%

30%

50%

50%

34%

62%

21%

62%

17%

59%

32%

9%

Distribution of household by type, East Laguna village, 1966 - 2007

66

109

242

428

158

Population Pressure

Difficulty in landacquisition

Opening of new sub-

division

Source: IRRI SSD Database



1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

WetDry

Distribution of rice varieties adopted by farmers, average yield per hectare, and

rice price received by farmers, East Laguna Village, 1965-2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

R i c e p r i c e

D e f l a

t e d b y

C P I ( P / k g

)

R i c e y i e l d s p e r h e c t a r e

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f

r i c e v a r i e t i e s

%

o f f a r m e r s a

d o p

t e d

DS 2011Triple-2 50% (introduced by a

wedding guest from NE)

RC-10 10%

RC18 10%

Source: IRRI SSD Database, Hayami and Kikuchi (2001)



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1961 1968 1975 1982 1989 1997 2008

Y ear

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

P r o d u c t i o n o f u n m i l l e d

r i c e ( m i l l i o n M T )

R

e a l p r i c e o f m i l l e d r i c e ( 2 0 0 8 ) U S $ / t o n )

Realprice

WorldProduction

Trends in world production and real price of rice,

1961-2008

Source: Production: USDA, 13May2008

Rice Price: 2008 is May 2008 price. Relate to Thai

rice 5%-broken deflated by G-5 MUV Index deflator

(adjusted based on April 17, 2008 data update)

Source: www.worldbank.org

Poor HHs’ food security has

been better off throughout

80s and 90s

http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.worldbank.org/



Labor utilization in rice production per hectare

wet season, East Laguna Village, 1966 - 1995

28

10

13

32

6

582

28

1

19

10

32

38

7

10

8

22

34

1

12

10

15

27

9

9

9

13

26

4

Total Hired Total Hired Total Hired

Others

Harv/

Thresh

Weeding

Crop

Estab.

Land

Prep.

1966 1976 1995

89

44

105

75 73

61

49 71 84Percent hired (%)




Impact of Green Revolution

• Q↑ P↓ (locally and globally)

– “Agricultural treadmill”

– Benefit of net sellers is little. Net buyers(marginal farmers, landless, urban people) has

been better off.

• ↑ in demand for hired labor



Land Reform Programs

(1970s~ )• “Operation Leasehold”

– Sharecropping leasehold tenancy w/ land

rent fixed at lower-than-market rate (50% 25%)

• “Operation Land Transfer”

– Land ownership to tenants (amortizationpayment equivalent to 25% of harvest)

“Land to the tillers”



owned

1%

leasehold

29%

Sub-Rented

7%

Share

63%

owned

2%

leasehold

63%

Sub-Rented

8%

Share

27%

Pawning

Ownership

1%owned

29%

leasehold49%

Sub-Rented

6%

Share15%

owned25%

leasehold

62%

Sub-Rented

7%

Share

6%

1966 1976 1996 2006

1970 1980Operation OperationLeasehold Land Transfer

Distribution of rice land by tenure status, East Laguna

Village, 1966-1995

Land Reform and Land Tenure Status




Remarks on the Land Reform

• Resulted in an inactive land rental market – “What if my tenant went to the land reform office and

my land was transferred to the tenant?”

– Disguised tenancy. Unwillingness to outsource

completely.

• Little chance of landless ag. Labor to be a

tenant. – Disappearance of “agricultural ladder”.

• Ag labor tenant owner cultivator

– Oversupply of ag labor and low wage rate

– Nullify labor demand increase



1966 1976 1987 1995 2007

Total

Non FarmWorker

AgriculturalLaborer

Farmer

Household

70%

30%

50%

50%

34%

62%

21%

62%

17%

59%

32%

9%

Distribution of household by type, East Laguna village, 1966 - 2007

66

109

242

428

158

Population Pressure




Shares of income from rice production per hectare, wet season,

East Laguna Village, 1966-1995

1966 1982 1995

1740

2920

3250

23%33

%44%

26%35%

Hired laborer

Farm operator

Land owner

Gross income(kg of paddy)

13%

53%50%

24%


The benefit to the hired

labor increased but notas much as that of farm

operators.



Transformation of a rice village

Trad.

Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MVs

Farm

Income ↑

Time

Land

reform

Immediate impact of GR



3.3

6.8

8.1

10.7 10.7

3.5

5.1

7

9.5

7.3

3.2

4.2

5.6 5.9 6.3

9.68.8 9.1

Average number of school years per adult male

(21-64 years old), East Laguna Village, 1966-2006

Largefarmer

Largefarmer

Largefarmer

Largefarmer

Smallfarmer

Smallfarmer

Smallfarmer

Smallfarmer

Agric.laborer

Agric.laborer

Agric.laborer

Agric.laborer

Non-farmworker

Non-farmworker

Largefarmer

Smallfarmer

Agric.laborer

Non-farmworker

1966 1976 1987 1997 2006

Impact on schooling Investments


The increase can be attributed to the

increase among young generations.



Job opening ads at a municipal hallFujitsu’s job opening ad

Small garment factory (Laguna) Bakery in the East Laguna Village



0

. 5

1

0

. 5

1

0

. 5

1

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

1 3 16

30 41 42

43

Schooling yearsGraphs by typoccup22

Farming Ag/Casual labor Overseas work

Self employment Unskilled work at small

ent

Unskilled work at large

ent

Technical/skilled work Completion years

Primary= 6Secondary= 10

Tertiary= 14

Distribution of schooling years by occupationKajisa (2007)

Schooling and Non-farm Jobs



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Overseas work

Self-employmen

t

Unskilledlabor Smallenterprises

Unskilledlabor Largeenterprises

Technical/Skilled work

Impact of Network Change Family/Relative network change Prob. at average network size 0.03 0.37 0.10 0.19 0.07Prob. after increasing one person 0.03 0.41 0.16 0.17 0.08Change 0 0.04 0.06 -0.02 0.01

Friend network change

Prob. at average network size 0.01 0.35 0.13 0.18 0.08Prob. after increasing one person 0.01 0.37 0.15 0.17 0.09Change 0 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

Acquaintance network change Prob. at average network size 0.04 0.34 0.12 0.17 0.07Prob. after increasing one person 0.03 0.37 0.12 0.20 0.08Change 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01

Impact of schooling year change Schooling years’ increase from primary to secondary level

Prob. at the completion of primary school 0.02 0.50 0.08 0.11 0.00Prob. at the completion of secondary

school0.04 0.33 0.16 0.22 0.01

Change 0.02 -0.17 0.08 0.11 0.01Schooling years’ increase from secondary to tertiary level Prob. at the completion of secondary

school0.04 0.33 0.16 0.22 0.01

Prob. at the completion of tertiary school 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.43

Change -0.01 -0.25 -0.03 0.00 0.42

Impacts of changes in personal networks and

schooling years by occupation (Simulation results)

Kajisa (2007)



Percentage composition of average household income,

East Laguna Village, 1974-95.

14 8 15 22 27 15

18 28 16 8 24 6

51 17 18 4 9 1

13

Non-farm origin 64

38

36

Farm origin 62

87

1974/76

1980/83

1995/96

0% 20% 40% 100%60% 80%

Rice Non-rice Farm wage

Non-farm ent. Non-farm wage Others

Sharp increase in Non-farm income




Average per-capita incomes (CPI deflation) by type of

household (1000 pesos), East Laguna Village, 1974/76 to 1995/96

Large

farmer

Small

farmer

Agric.

laborer

Large

farmer

Small

farmer

Agric.

laborer

Non-farm

worker

100 55 23 53 %100 57 35 %

17

9

6

1974/76

33

18

8

17

1995/96

100



0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 Year

1966 54

1974 62

1983 77

1995 89

I n c o m e

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 Year

1974 45 68

1983 45 67

1995 51 56

% Gini % Poor

Income distribution

Land distribution

L a n d

% Gini

Changes in land and income distribution, East Laguna Village, 1966-1995

Gini coefficient calculated across individuals’ under the assumption that a household income was distributed equally amongthe members of each household.

Percentage of population having incomes below the poverty line. The poverty line is defined as an annual per-capita incomerequired to satisfy basic nutritional requirements (2000 calories) and other basic needs. The poverty lines in respective yearsare estimated by deflating the 1994 poverty line by CPI estimated by the National Statistical Coordination Board (1996) forthe rural sector of the Philippines.

Note.% Gini:

% Poor:

Source: Hayami Kikuchi (2001)




Trad.

Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MV

Farm

Income ↑

Schooling

Investments

To children

Non-Farm

income ↑

Time

Equity in

Income

distribution,

maintained

Heterogeneity

in occupations

Land

reform

Aging of farmers

Long-term impact of GR

Factories in

Industrialzones



Kikuchi (2002)

2011

P 131 /d

Labor wage rate from 1965 to 2011

Labor is abundant for

agriculture at thesame low wage rate!



Complicated incentives in farm management

• Abundant labor is still available at the same low cost.

– I-1. Outsourcing of farming, rather than mechanization• But many of them are outsiders (new migrants, poorer

people in nearby villages)

– I-2.Management through Kabisilya (foreman) , rather

than direct hiring• Inactive land-rental market because of the land reform

– I-3. Unwilling to outsource faming completely (so that

the owners can still claim they are farming and the

tenants are not the tillers).• Vested interest among old ex-farmers (retaining harvesting

right of particular parcels)

– I-4. Try to retain the right and sub-contract to others.

C l i i l b



Complexity in labor management

Activity Arrangement (DS 2011)

LP Cont. w/ a tractor owner (per ha. base)

TP Cont . w/ Kabsiliya (per ha. base)

CC (1) Farmers(2) Upapan (ag. Labor, daily wage base)

(3) Procientuhan (10% sharecropping for management)

HV

(1) Hunusan ( % of harvest)

(2) Gama (% of harvest w/ weeding service)(3) Pakyau (outsourcing to Kabsiliya, per ha. base)

(4) Hunusan + sub-contracting to Kabsiliya

TH Cont. w/ a threshing machine owner (9-10% of harvest)

Almost every season every farmer has to

think of what is the optimal labor

arrangement for him/her in that

particular season.




Trad.

Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MV

Farm

Income ↑

Schooling

Investments

To children

Non-Farm

income ↑

Time

Aging

of farme

rs

Heterogeneity

in occupations

Outsourci

ng of

farming

Complicated

labor

arrangement

Abundant

labor inpoorer

villages

Inflexible

rule/vestedinterest

Land

reform

Factories in

Industrialzones

Equity in

Income

distribution,

maintained



Percentage of paddy fields cultivated by the villagers by

irrigation condition, East Laguna Village, 1985-2012

Changes in irrigation

System

rehabilitati

on by NIA

in 2011

Cost of irrigation

NIA: 1,500/ha (WS) 2,500/ha (DS)

Pump: 5,000 /ha (WS) 10,000/ha (DS)





Trad.

Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MV

Farm

Income ↑

Schooling

Investments

To children

Non-Farm

income ↑

Time

Aging

of farme

rs

Heterogeneity

in occupations

Outsourci

ng of

farming

Collective

irrigation

Mng ↓

Complicated

labor

arrangement

Costly

Private

pump

irrigation

Abundant

labor inpoorer

villages

Inflexible

rule/vestedinterest

Land

reform

Factories in

Industrialzones

Equity in

Income

distribution,

maintained



Impact of Typhoon Milenyo

An Overview of Milenyo •On September 25, 2006

•Php6.5B (US$130M) damages

to infrastructure andagriculture.

•496,325 homes were totally

or partially destroyed.

•127 deaths, 323 injured, and

45 missing.



Electricity supply was cut.



Completely damaged house

A h t t d b th R d



A house reconstructed by the Red

Cross Aid (photo taken in 2011)



Fallen mango trees



Damages to rice fields

O ll D f Mil



Overall Damages of Milenyo aCrop share for porcientuhan and harvest share for wage workers. bCrop share on rented-out plots.

Kind of damage Farmer Landless Nonagricultural

Number % Number % Number %

None (0) 10 24 63 42 108 51 Lost house (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0House seriously damage (2) 5 12 39 26 62 30 Lost utensils (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0Lost productive assets (4) 1 2 1 1 5 2Lost job (5) 0 0 1 1 5 2

Income declined (6) 9 22 16 11 6 3 Lost members (7) 0 0 0 0 0 0Members got injured or sicked (8) 0 0 0 0 0 0Crop damage (9) 1 2 5 3a 13 6b Others (10) 0 0 0 0 4 2Combination of (2) and (4) 0 0 0 0 1 0Combination of (2) and (5) 1 2 0 0 0 0Combination of (2) and (6) 2 5 11 7 2 1

Combination of (2) and (9) 1 2 0 0 2 1Combination of (4) and (6) 0 0 2 1 0 0Combination of (6) and (9) 7 17 9 6 a 1 0 Combination of (2), (6) and (9) 4 10 1 1a 0 0 Combination of (1), (6) and (9) 0 0 0 0 1 0Combination of (6) and (10) 0 0 1 1 0 0Total 41 100 149 100 210 100

Sawada et al (2009)

Damages to Farm endowments and harvests



g

•Damages to paddy

Paddy got wet when the fields were submerged in water and wet paddy

commands a lower price in the market.

Total paddy harvest 151,160 kg (the expected harvest was 222,966 kg) 32%

decline by Milenyo

“(Subjective) Decline in paddy price”: Php8.89 per kg to Php7.44 per kg (16%

reduction).

•On the average,

Per HH loss of paddy is Php260 the minimum wage rate of Php250.00 per day.Per HH loss of mango tree is Php680 per household 2.72 times the minimum

wage rate per day.

Farm endowment Numbercompletely lost

Number heavilydamaged

Estimated (subjective )value lost (PHP)

Avocado 4 5 2,100 Banana 441 402 17,755

Jackfruit 17 42 5,400

Mango 239 98 271,950

Rambutan 18 27 26,525

Chicken 19 0 2,250

Pigs 7 0 9,100 Sawada et al (2009)

Households’ Risk Coping Mechanisms



p g

Coping mechanism Farmerhouseholds

(%)

Landlesshouseholds

(%)

Nonagriculturalhouseholds

(%)1.Reduce food consumption 27 76 47

1.1 Rice 0 15 81.2 Protein 5 27 13

1.3 Food taken outside 22 34 26

2. Switch consumption to own produce 12 34 22

3. Reduce child schooling 2 1 4

4. Reduce medical expenses 0 3 3

5. of valuable items 0 4 66. Emergency borrowing 33 50 30

6.1 Bank 5 3 2

6.2 Relatives 12 13 10

6.3 Friends 3 7 3

6.4 Neighbors 0 6 0

6.5 Moneylender 10 6 5

6.6 Pawnshop 0 0 0

6.7 Sari-sari store 3 15 10

7. Emigration 0 0 0

8. Received remittances 25 16 21

9. Aid from local government and NGO 46 65 58

10. Nonfarm employment 85 60 94 Sawada et al (2009)



Risk Coping Mechanism

• A decrease in the expenditure on relatively more expensive

sources of protein (such as pork) is the most commonreaction among landless HHs.

• Nonfarm employment played a crucial role as an insurance

mechanism.

• The community networks in securing emergency loans andthe personal networks in receiving remittances were

particularly important for the landless poor.

• The active local government participation in managing the

disaster was considered by the poor as another importantfactor that allowed them to cope with the disaster.



After 4 decades of transformation…

• The village is not a “pure” rice village anymore.

– Non-farm workers: 59%

– (rice is still important; paddy fields are fully

cultivated; yield is high.)

• Rice farming is becoming more difficult because – it requires skillful labor management

– it requires collective irrigation management among

heterogeneous members. (otherwise, they need to

use expensive pump water.)

• Vulnerability to shocks is still serious problem, even

though villagers can cope it through their social

network to some extent.

d



Advertisement

• Long term village studies reveal

– Dynamics of transformation

– Long term impact of technologies, in

association with other modernization factors

– Potential and bottlenecks for furtherdevelopment in the future.

• SSD’s activities

– The Central Luzon Loop survey, – Bohol Irrigation System (4-season baseline),

– Bangladesh VDSA,

– Tanzania, Mozambique (baseline),

A k l d



Acknowledgements

Great Predecessors

Yujiro HayamiMasao Kikuchi

Randy Barker

Mahabub Hossain

Available at IRRI Gift Shop,for those who are

interested in the early

period of the village

Current and ex-SSD

staff Pie Moya

Esther Marciano

Fe Gascon

Lui Bambo

Raph Aranil

Mirla Domingo

Tintin Doctolero

Collaborators

Jonna P. Estudillo

Nobuhiko Fuwa

Yasuyuki Sawada

Yuki Higuchi

Above all, my deepest gratitude goes to the villagers of the

East Laguna Village.

http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/images/0333726170/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=52033011&s=english-books

four decades of socioeconomic studies in a rice village in east laguna

Documents