their perceptions in this regard; we found that their answers on this issue varied greatly with the
way the question was asked. We need to investigate this question further.


Hypothesis 2: Opportunity Cost of Time

Farmers with substantial off-farm employment and income tend to invest less in soil conservation
than those without. In part, this appears to be so because the opportunity cost of their time is
greater.12 They find that they can spend their time more profitably pursuing activities other than
soil conservation.

The cost of soil conservation depends in part on the value of the time of the person who does the
work. In the simplest case, the cost of soil conservation using hired labour depends on the wage
that is paid.

We have observed that farmers usually do SWC work themselves rather than hire workers. This
implies that they calculate the benefits of soil conservation and compare it to the value of their
time. Because this value differs among people, investment behavior will vary. The amount of
family labour invested in soil conservation determines not only who invests, but also when
investments are likely to take place because each farmer's opportunity cost of time is not constant.
Rather, it is high when there are other pressing things to do, but low when there are not.13

Farmers will hire labour for soil conservation if two conditions hold. First, the returns must be
higher than the wage. Second, they must have cash (or grain) available to pay the wage. If either
of these conditions does not hold, soil conservation work will only be done using family labour,
if it is done at all.

Seasonal Variations: The opportunity cost of time changes seasonally for farmers it is high
during planting and harvesting, for example, and low during the slack season. This is reflected
by changes in daily wage rates over the course of the year. Accordingly, to the extent possible
soil and water conservation programmes should operate when wages are lowest.

Fluctuations Within the Day: Other fluctuations in the opportunity cost of time are not reflected
in the daily labour market. In particular, over the course of a single day people may be more or
less busy. Many people spread their land care work over a long period of time, working only at
odd hours when there is little else to do.

This has important implications for the design of SWC programmes. Cost effective use of time
dictates that the landowner does his soil conservation work when the value of his time is low. A
good example of this principle is offered by a farmer in Aurepalle (Mahbubnagar District, Andhra
Pradesh), one of the study villages, whose field was eroding. He was able to explain the problem
and the necessary corrective measures, but said he did not have time to devote the five days needed
for the work just yet. He was asked if he would do the work if he were paid Rs. 7 per day (the daily
wage in Aurepalle is Rs. 20). He thought about it and said that he would not do so if he had to
work full time for five days, but would work for the equivalent of Rs. 7 per day if he could spread
the job out over two months, working during his free time.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA34