- 21 -


 One frequent objection to the introduction of economic feasibility in the

case of subsistence farming is that product is not monetized or only partially

monetized. But the relevance of profitability still is involved even where the
 1!
introduction of new technology is not the issue. For example, Robinson

Crusoe did not try to reach the absolute maximum of total physical production

on his garden plot because his labor had a value in other "economic" pursuits.

This simple fact is too frequently forgotten by those change agents who

criticize the farmer who does not try to achieve maximum total physical pro-

ductivity on each square inch of Us acreage. If the farmer is asked to plant

a new variety which is fertilizer responsive, the seed perhaps and certainly

the fertilizer will cost him money. If the new variety requires improved water

control, then he must invest in better distributaries or water controls or even

improved levelling of his fields -- which again involves a cost. If he is

asked to plant a shorter term variety, he must weigh the increase in output

(and hopefully income), against the added cost of its harvest during a period

when additional drying and/or storage costs may be incurred. Moreover, the

costs incurred by the low-income farmer are often greater than the nominal price

of the new input. If he is short of capital and must borrow, the interest

charges must be added and such charges may be considerable where money lenders

or merchants exercise monopoly or monopsony powers [Uharton, 1962; Long, 1968a].



/ This area is one where I suspect I may differ with my colleagues in economic
anthropology [Dalton, 1961]. While there may be differences as to the goals of
production and distribution in such situations, I would argue that the means
employed within the firm still follow economizing rules. For further treatment
of the issue in a cross-disciplinary context see Wharton [1969, Ch. 14].