- 35 -


substantially higher than Pm. This may be due to a variety of reasons such as

larger or higher quality resources or better technology which provides an average

annual level of living considerably greater than the Pm. In this case, notions

of a minimum subsistence standard are dominant. In situation C, the high-income,

commercial case, Sms is higher than Pm, but now an increased difference between

Sms and L is evident. In this case, the achievement standard and the actual level

of living assume their normal roles as determinants of behavior. It must be

emphasized that in the real world, these three types are not discrete and that

there is in fact a continuum. However, the three cases highlight those situations

where the dominant behavioral considerations are different.

 Our analysis is particularly concerned with farmers in type A and B situations

 especially the former.

 D. The Dynamic Interaction of Risk, Uncertainty and Subsistence Upon
 Technological Innovation


 Technological change occurs only when the innovation is actually adopted by

 the farm operators. Since the decision-making or choice context of the farmer is

 at the root of the adoption process, any new or suggested technological intro-

 duction or innovation must be viewed from the standpoint of the farmers.

 Any new technology or practice has associated with it certain expected

 probabilities regarding yields per acre and their associated income figures.

 These estimates are primarily derived from the results of experiment stations
 1/
 and varietal trials. The variations in yield observed on the various trials

 on the experiment station plots and in farm demonstrations need not be, and



 1/ While field trials and farm demonstrations may help to reduce the subjective
 variance which a peasant farmer may attach to the new technology, some variance
 still remains. Thus the logic of the argument remains -- each farmer must still
 live with his individual risk.