- 11 -


and crops involved, the overwhelming evidence indicates that subsistence and

semi-subsistence farmers do in fact respond to economic incentives [Krishna,

1965, 1967; PSAC, 1967, Ch. 9; Behrman, 1969; Bateman, 1969]. They increase

the production of those crops whose relative economic returns have improved

and decrease those which have become disadvantageous. Some of the observable

response has come as a result of greater intensification in the use of available

resources without any significant alteration in the existing technology; others

have come through the adoption of new techniques and practices. Whether or

not the agricultural sector as a whole is responsive to economic incentives is

still open to debate and being investigated by a number of researchers.

 Despite all the new .evidence on the economic responsiveness of subsistence

farmers, there is equally ample evidence, usually in semi-anecdotal or case

study form, where farmers have seemingly not responded to an "obvious" economic

opportunity [Borton, 1967]. Explanations of such cases vary. Some analyses

rely upon non-economic explanations -- the indigenous culture militated against

the new practice; there were serious religious prohibitions which would prevent

the adoption of a new technology; higher production would disrupt the fabric

of the traditional society. Others find that upon closer examination the economic

advantage turned out to be illusory -- the landlord secured all the gain; the

moneylender skimmed off the cream; the government guaranteed price was not in

fact paid; the cost structure made the new innovation unprofitable.

 All of these explanations have varying degrees of merit in certain

 instances. Yet the current pressures of burgeoning population on world food

 supplies have thrown into relief the need for more rapid economic responsiveness

 and the more rapid adoption of available new technology if the race is to be