SPECIAL ARTICLE

Diffusion of New Technologies and Productivity Growth in Agriculture: Natural Rubber vs Coconuts

Sunil Mani, V Santhakumar

India has the highest level of productivity in natural oconut and natural rubber are two agricultural tree crops. rubber and coconuts. While natural rubber productivity Natural rubber has registered the highest productivity growth among all other agricultural crops, while the pro- has grown rapidly, that of coconuts has barely increased C ductivity of coconuts has barely increased over time. We seek an over time. This paper seeks an explanation for this explanation for this differential performance in terms of the con- differential performance in terms of relative rates of stitution of the relative diffusion of new technologies facilitated diffusion of new technologies facilitated by their by their respective Sectoral Systems of Innovation (SSI). The SSI of natural rubber consisted of an articulated regulatory policy respective Sectoral Systems of Innovation. The ssi of mechanism which ensured that the new technologies that were rubber consists of an articulated regulatory policy generated by the research arm of the regulatory body itself were mechanism which ensured that the new technologies adopted by the farmers. In order to take care of the cost of adop- that were generated by the research arm of the tion, which was substantial, capital subsidies were put in place. Contrary to this, in coconuts there does not appear to be much evi- regulatory body itself were adopted by the farmers. dence of diffusion of new technologies and its SSI until recently Contrary to this, in coconuts there appear not much was characterised by a lack of cohesiveness with a multiplicity of evidence of diffusion of new technologies and its ssi is actors operating at sub-optimal scales. Also the main regulatory characterised by a lack of cohesiveness with a body does not have the legal wherewithal nor does it have abso- lute control over the generation of new technologies. Capital sub- multiplicity of actors operating at sub-optimal scales. sidies though available are much smaller in magnitude. The re- However, some concerted efforts have been made over search system is also not very successful in finding solutions to the last 10 years or so to develop new technologies and some of the diseases having a deleterious effect on the productiv- its diffusion among farmers and this has started bearing ity level of coconuts such as, for instance, the root wilt disease. However, some concerted efforts have been made over the last 10 fruit in the form of increases in productivity, specifically years or so to develop new technologies and its diffusion among since 1995-96. farmers and this has started bearing fruit in the form of increases in productivity, specifically since 1995-96. The study thus recon- firms a recent finding in the literature (Mani 2009) that the consti- tution of the SSI is a necessary condition for not only generating new technologies but for its speedy diffusion as well. The paper is structured into five sections. Section 1 engages with the literature on diffusion of innovations in agricultural crops. Sec- tion 2 states the problem, namely, the productivity trends and dif- ferential in rubber and coconuts. Section 3 maps out the frame- work for analysis. Section 4 provides an explanation of the ob- served trends in productivity differential across the two crops in terms of the constitution of their respective sectoral systems of in- This is a revised version of a paper that we presented at the Centre for novation. Section 5 summarises the main findings of our study. Development Studies-McGill international seminar on “Role of New Technologies in Sustainable Development: The Case of Kerala”, 27-28 January 2009. We are grateful to the discussants for their 1 Engagement with the Literature comments and to the IDRC and the Canadian High Commission, How best to facilitate the generation and use of productivity en- New Delhi for sponsorship. However, we alone are responsible for any hancing technologies in agriculture? This is an issue that captured errors or shortcomings that may still remain in the paper. the attention of policymakers, academics and public at large. It Sunil Mani ([email protected]) and V Santhakumar is well recognised that there are market failures in technology ([email protected]) are at the Centre for Development Studies, ­generation in general and more so in agricultural technologies Thiruvananthapuram. (with the ignorance, poverty and low willingness to pay of a major

58 february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE section of the farmers). Thus public sector r­esearch organisations succeeds or does not succeed in a context were lacking. One such and government departments were given a greater role in gener- effort was to use the innovation system approach discussed in ating and extending farm technologies. Malerba (2004). This framework treats R&D as an innovation sys- However this model proved inadequate to enhance technology- tem in which both the producers and users are seen as parts of based productivity in many crops. There was a consistent search the same system and attempts to identify certain patterns in sys- for the reasons for the failure of such a model, and also for viable tem relationships, governance, capacity-building or learning, alternatives. The initial focus was on the gap between research evolving roles, and wider institutional contexts (Hall and Yoga- and extension – with the presumption that appropriate techno­ nand 2002). The role of incentive systems, oversight, organisa- logies are generated within research organisations, but adequate tional ability, etc, in realising the expected rate of return from efforts were not made to take the fruits of research to the poten- agricultural research is also well recognised (Byerlee and Alex tial users, namely, farmers. This led to many innovations in ex- 1998). There can be also an integration of this incentive system tension models. This technology transfer approach was widely approach with that of the innovation system. prevalent in the 1970s and T&V (Training and Visit) programmes The paper uses the sectoral system of the innovation frame- were designed with this purpose. There was also a realisation work to explain the differential performance of two major tree that the public research system need not generate technologies crops in India, namely, coconut and rubber. Both these crops required or demanded by the people (Santhakumar and Raja­ were having different systems of innovation for most parts of the gopalan 1995). According to this view, the lack of use is partly period of study. The differential performance of the generation due to the generation of technologies unsuitable for the real con- and use of productivity enhancing technologies for these crops is ditions of the farmers. Thus, there were many attempts to bridge linked in this paper to the different types of the SSI used for these the gap between the technologists and the farmers. two crops. Participatory and farming system research was one such effort in that direction. However as noted by Hall et al (2000), “(the) 2 Productivity Differential between Rubber and Coconuts institutional context of many public research organisations has India is one of the major producers of both coconuts and natural restricted the development of truly participatory and client rubber (NR). The country has the highest productivity in coconuts f­ocused working practices. Other mechanisms which enhance the and the second highest productivity in NR among the major pro- participation and ownership of end users (farmers) in the process ducing countries of both these perennial tree crops (Table 1). of technology generation and its use were also explored. The role The productivity of NR has increased at a slightly higher rate of of growers’ associations in facilitating and extending research 2.05%. But output has increased by 4.58% and the tapped area by was seen in this light (Muliyar 1983). There were also commodity Table 1: Productivity Trends in Coconuts and Natural about 2.4%. This im- boards with a mandate for marketing and/or the provision of Rubber: India vis-à-vis Other Producing Countries (c2005) plies that in the case Country Coconut Productivity Country Natural Rubber other support services (including subsidies), and it is argued that (Nuts per ha) Productivity (Kg per ha) of NR, both extensive they may have a greater incentive for being effective in terms of India 6,632 Thailand 1,875 and intensive culti- technology generation and exten­sion, even if these boards function Indonesia 4,174 India 1,727 vation was together, under the government (Narayana 1992). There are counter cases Philippines 3,916 Vietnam 1,483 more or less, respon- too as in Kenya where growers’ associations became politicised and Sri Lanka 705 Malaysia 1,330 sible for the output hence less accountable to the growers (Kangasniem 2002). Thailand 552 Sri Lanka 1,073 increase. On a long There is also the criticism that the producers’ associations or Vietnam 513 Indonesia 862 time series basis com­modity boards may focus on the benefit to producers and ne- Malaysia 350 (1956-57 through Source: For coconuts: Asia Pacific Coconut Community, glect the welfare of the consumers or the economy as a whole. http://www.apccsec.org/ (accessed 12 April 2010); and for 2006-07), the pro- rubber: Rubber Board (undated). The growers’ associations and commodity boards may lobby for ductivity of NR has enhanced protection of their products in domestic markets or grown at an average rate of 3.44% per annum while that of coco- support for exports, both of which may have a negative impact on nuts have merely increased by 0.58% per annum (Figure 1, p 60). domestic consumers. Moreover, the provision of subsidies associ- Moreover the inter-year variability in productivity of the former ated with the propagation of specific tech­nologies, as well as the is significantly less than that of the latter. This implies that the bureaucratic compulsions of com­modity boards may also lead to improvement in the productivity of coconuts is of recent origin excessive inducement of farmers to adopt specific production sys- and specifically since the mid-1990s. tems, which may not be sustainable in a more market-determined Given the differences in the units for measuring the producti­vity situation (IAASTD 2009). Finally, it is possible that producer of the two commodities, we have converted both to a ­common o­rganisations may not be the best suppliers of research services numéraire by transforming the raw productivity ­numbers to except for adaptive on-farm research (Echeverria et al 1996). ­index numbers with the base year at 1990-91 (Table 2, p 60). We Moreover, for crops that have a large number of cultivators such then took the ratio of NR productivity index to that of the coco- as rice or wheat, the concept of growers’ association becomes nut productivity index. The ratio was greater than unity for all u­nmanageable and would have prob­lems similar to those of the 17 years under consideration and has tended to show some g­overnment-owned research systems. marginal decreases since 2004-05 and it has averaged around However, systematic efforts to explain why a particular system 1.31. This implies that not only NR has registered a higher rate of or mechanism of developing and using technologies or innovations growth in productivity (based on our earlier observations), but

Economic & Political Weekly EPW february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 59 SPECIAL ARTICLE

Figure 1: Trends in Long-term Productivity Growth Rates in Natural Rubber and application and spraying of the trees with fungicides). Of all Coconuts, 1956-57 through 2006-07 (Average percentage change per annum) these, we argue that the most proximate and important new 25.0025 technology variable is the one on area under high yielding planting materials. 20.00 20 So the diffusion rate (DR ) is proxied thus: Coconuts NR Tapped area under high yielding varieties 15.0015 DR = *100 NR Total area under NR (See Figure 2 for the diffusion rate.) The rate has been 10.0010 worked out for estates and small holdings. The curve conforms NR to a ­logistical curve of sorts as predicated by theory. It Average rate of growth per Coconuts 5.005 annum (%) is NRseen that the diffusion rate has reached the saturation point for the estates first and then for the small holdings. This is 0.000 all intuitive.

11956-57 1961-62 1966-67 1971-72 1976-77 1981-82 1986-87 1991-92 1996-97 2001-2002 2006-072007 -5.00-5 3 Sectoral System of Innovation of NR The SSI of NR consists of the following five components: (i) The -10.00-10 legislative enactments on rubber, the most important of which is Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, http://dacnet.nic.in/eands/Book_Setup_4.pdf the Rubber Act of 1947; (ii) The Rubber Board under the Union (accessed 15 April 2010). -15.00 Ministry of Commerce which has crafted the various policy the level of its productivity is higher than that of coconuts. We measures for promoting NR production and indeed its consump- seek to explain this productivity differential between the two tion in the country. The Rubber Board has also been providing commodities in terms of diffusion of new technologies facilitated both capital and for some years input subsidies for offsetting the in turn by their respective sectoral systems of innovation. large capital investments and the long gestation period of seven

Towards an Explanation of Productivity Growth Figure 2: Diffusion Rate of New Technologies in NR Production (in %) 120.00120 It is seen that the diffusion of new technologies in NR has been

fast and high and the rate of diffusion curve shows a continuousDiffusion rate in per cent increase until the early 1990s. Thereafter it has increased 100.00100

rather slowly and appears to be heading for saturation The new Estates

­technologies that have been introduced that have an impact on 80.0080 productivity are: the introduction of high yielding varieties, the system of tapping, rain guarding of the trees during the mon- Total 60.0060 soon periods, planting distance between the trees, and the a­pplication of modern cultural practices (irrigation, fertiliser 40.0040

Table 2: Productivity Differential between NR and Coconuts (1990-91 to 2006-07) Small Holdings NR Productivity NR Index Coconut Coconut Ratio of NR

Productivity Index to Coconuts 20.0020 1990-91 1,076 100.00 6,595 100.00 1.00 1991-92 1,130 105.02 6,593 99.97 1.05 0.000 1992-93 1,191 110.69 7,310 110.84 1.00 1955-1955- 1960-1965-1960- 1965- 1970-1970- 1975-1975- 1980-1980- 1985-1985- 1990-1990- 1991-1991- 1992-1992- 1993-1993- 1994-1994- 1995-1995- 1996-1996- 1997-1997- 1998-1998- 1999-1999- 2000-2000- 5656 6161 6666 7171 7676 8181 8686 9191 9292 9393 9494 9595 9696 9797 9898 9999 200000 0101 1993-94 1,285 119.42 7,314 110.90 1.08 Estates Source:31.26 Computed44.48 62.06 from82.19 Rubber96.71 99.11 Board,99.24 http://rubberboard.org.in/rubberstaticsdisplaypage.asp99.50 99.52 99.54 99.57 99.57 99.58 99.61 99.63 99.63 99.67 99.71 Small Holdings (accessed7.39 1529.78 April43.12 2010).55.43 63.62 78.77 87.31 91.91 92.31 92.76 93.63 94.37 95.05 95.60 96.20 96.78 97.15 98.12 1994-95 1,362 126.58 7,760 117.66 1.08 Total 20.59 35.25 49.59 63.73 73.05 83.69 89.57 93.15 93.46 93.82 94.55 95.15 95.69 96.16 96.64 97.13 97.46 98.31 1995-96 1,422 132.16 7,066 107.14 1.23 years in the growing of NR; (iii) The Rubber Research Institute 1996-97 1,503 139.68 6,908 104.75 1.33 of India (RRII) which has generated most of the technologies 1997-98 1,549 143.96 6,834 103.62 1.39 t­owards this sector and especially the production-related tech- 1998-99 1,563 145.26 7,145 108.34 1.34 nologies; (iv) The rubber growers consisting of largely small 1999-2000 1,576 146.47 6,860 104.02 1.41 holdings and estates; and (v) The rubber consumers, both auto- 2000-01 1,576 146.47 6,847 103.82 1.41 2001-02 1,576 146.47 6,709 101.73 1.44 motive tyre and non-tyre manufacturers. 2002-03 1,592 147.96 6,337 96.09 1.54 Of all these five different components, we argue that two com- 2003-04 1,663 154.55 6,310 95.68 1.62 ponents, namely, certain provisions of the Rubber Act and the role 2004-05 1,705 158.46 6,615 100.30 1.58 of the Rubber Board are very important in explaining this speedy 2005-06 1.796 166.91 7,608 115.36 1.45 diffusion of new technologies. The role of the Rubber Board has 2006-07 1,879 174.63 8,179 124.02 1.41 two dimensions: (a) generation of new technologies by its research NR productivity is in Kgs per ha; and coconut productivity is in number of nuts per ha. Source: Rubber Board, Indian Rubber Statistics, http://rubberboard.org.in/rubberstaticsdisplaypage. wing, the RRII in terms of developing a number of high yielding asp (accessed on 15 April 2010), Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of clones that are suited to the soil and weather pattern; and (b) the Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, http://dacnet.nic.in/ eands/Book_Setup_4.pdf (accessed 15 April 2010). availability of capital subsidies for diffusing new technologies

60 february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE for both new and replanting and in the rubber growing regions development of rubber plantations in India. This investment in of Kerala. research led to the development of a number of clones that are We now examine each of these two diffusion enhancing factors. very much suited to the rubber growing locations in Kerala. In 2005, it introduced the RRII 400 series of clones which have a (i) Legal Instruments to Facilitate Diffusion of New Techno­ higher productivity than RRII 105. Currently, according to press logies: The Government of India passed the Rubber (Production reports, the RRII has 46 new clones in the pipeline (Mint, 31 Octo- and Marketing) Act, 1947 to provide for the overall promotion ber 2007). Of the various clones developed, the one that is most and development of the sector under its guidance and control. As commonly adopted is RRII 105, introduced in 1980 (for a profile of envisaged in the Act, the Indian Rubber Board was set up as the the various clones including RRII 105 see Annexure 1, p 63). statutory organisation responsible for assisting the government One of the important routes for hastening the adoption by in implementation of the various provisions of the Act. The Act ­individual farmers was an innovative method of involving the which came into force on 18 April 1947 has since undergone many farmers, both small and large, in experimental trials of the new amendments. The Rubber Production and Marketing (Amend- clones. In this way the RRII could reduce problems of asymmetric ment) Act of 1954 made some important changes in the constitu- information that normally act as a constraint in the diffusion of tion of the board now renamed as the Rubber Board. It clearly de- new technologies. fined the role of the board in the development of the industry and in formulating and implementing necessary research and develop- (ii) Cost of Generation and Diffusion of New Technologies by the ment programmes. This was followed by notification of the Rub- Rubber Board1: The Rubber Board has incurred considerable sums ber Rules, 1955 laying down guidelines for the board to follow in of money for both developing and diffusing the new technologies. carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rules have been sub- The latter was accomplished by providing capital subsidies. Of the jected to need based amendments from time to time. The Rubber total cost of developing Table 3: Average Cost of Generating New Technologies (Amendment) Act of 1960 made certain alterations in the rate and rubber plantations, cost in NR vis-à-vis in Its Diffusion (Rs per ha) Average Cost Rate of Average Cost of Rate of procedure of collection of cess on rubber. The 1994 amendment of new technology gen- of Generation Growth (%) Diffusion (%) Growth (%) re-fixed the maximum rate of cess that can be levied on rubber. eration accounts for 1990-91 94.6 286.64 Section 17 of the Rubber Act gives considerable legislative powers about 15% and the cost 1991-92 103.7 9.64 252.32 -11.97 to the board in terms of requiring the growers to adopt high yielding of diffusion about 37%, 1992-93 111.2 7.22 238.59 -5.44 varieties of planting materials developed by the RRII. This section on an average, during 1993-94 133.20 19.82 239.55 0.57 1994-95 108.4 -18.67 211.59 -11.82 applied to both new and replanting. If a grower does not comply the period under con- 1995-96 131.40 21.25 214.62 1.43 with the provisions of this section her plantation may not be licensed sideration (Table 3). 1996-97 161.70 23.04 226.62 5.59 and she may not then become eligible to receive the numerous sub- The rationale for this 1997-98 184.40 14.08 268.65 18.54 sidy programmes that the Rubber Board disburses from time to needs to be found in 1998-99 173.90 -5.70 325.32 21.10 time. In fact, the existence of this piece of legislation and its more or the high capital re- 1999-00 194.40 11.78 361.89 11.24 less religious implementation by the board was very helpful in terms quirement and long 2000-01 186.80 -3.90 345.27 -4.59 of diffusing the new techno­logies developed by the RRII. gestation period in- Source: Rubber Board (various issues). volved in the growing of NR. The average cost (during 1990-91 (ii) Role of the Rubber Board in Diffusion of New Techno­ through 2000-01) of generating new technologies per hectare of logies: There are two separate dimensions under this category. tapped area works out to Rs 144 while that of diffusion works out to (i) First dimension: Generation of new varieties of high yielding Rs 270. This higher emphasis on diffusion is really unusual as most clones by the RRII. The cost incurred in generating these new government research institutes pay scant attention to the diffusion technologies are referred to as generation costs; and (ii) Second of new technologies that they themselves have developed. Moreover dimension: Fast diffusion of these new technologies by invoking in the rubber case, the high initial capital investment required and Section 17 of the Rubber Act and in the provision of capital subsi- the long gestation ­period of seven years justified such subsidies. dies for both new and replanting. We refer to these capital subsi- dies as cost of diffusion. 4 The Sectoral System of Innovation of Coconuts We explain these two dimensions in some detail below: The system of innovation for coconuts until the year 2000 was very different from that of NR. There is a multiplicity of institu- (i) Generation of New Technologies by the Rubber Research tions/organisations and governments involved in supporting Institute of India: Unlike in coconuts almost the entire research technical change, some central level and others at the state level. on various aspects of NR and especially in its production at the One can identify the following four components: (i) At the plantation level is solely done by one agent, the Rubber Research ­policy level, we have the Coconut Development Board which is a Institute of India. This has helped to prevent duplicity in research commodity board under the ministry of agriculture. But there and achieve economies of scale. The expenditure on R&D by the is also the agriculture department at the Kerala state level. RRII is denoted by us as the cost of generating new technologies. (ii) Technology generation is by the (a) Central Plantation Crops This has increased, on an average at 12% per annum since 1998-99. Research Institute (CPCRI), a central government research institute In terms of its share, the cost of new technologies accounted for under the administrative control of the Indian Council of about 15% of the total cost incurred by the Rubber Board towards ­Agricultural Research (ICAR) and (b) by the state-level agricultural

Economic & Political Weekly EPW february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 61 SPECIAL ARTICLE universities. Among them, the Kerala State Agricultural University a better ability to conserve water under conditions of stress com- and the Tamil Nadu State Agricultural University have been work- pared to HYV (DXT) (Kasturibai et al 1988) and hence the former ing on coconuts for a long time. (iii) Producers: they are small may be more tolerant to drought. farmers, mostly unorganised. (iv) The consumers are divided The effort to control root wilt disease which had been affecting somewhat equally between a large number of households and coconut palm for the last one century (Santhakumar and Raja­ i­ndustrial consumers. Table 4: Number of Coconut gopalan 1995), was also not successful. Even the HYV were not Thus there are no direct con- Seedlings Distributed by the disease resistant, as evident from that “20 to 40% of these palms Department of Agriculture between nections between different activi- Mid-1970s and Mid-1980s (in lakh) in some of the experimental stations have been affected by the ties. The research carried out by Year Traditional Variety HYV disease” (Sivanandan 1985). Control measures are not available different agencies was not well co- 1978-79 6.84 3.39 due to the “uncertain aetiology” and hence the advocated pack- ordinated. The connection be- 1979-80 7.86 4.35 age consisted of how to cope up with the disease (Narayana et al 1980-81 9.27 4.93 tween research agencies and the 1981-82 24.42 4.31 1991). These include well manuring and irrigation of disease af- extension departments (i e, the 1982-83 24.53 2.68 fected plants at early stages of disease, and cutting down and re- state agricultural departments) 1983-84 18.26 1.49 plantation of badly affected plants. Plant protection chemicals to was not strong. The provision of 1984-85 12.69 1.28 control root wilt disease have not been found out and propa- Source: Narayana et al (1991). subsidies by the departments of gated, though some fungicides are advocated to avoid further agriculture was not linked to technology adoption, even disease of the root-wilt affected palm. though there were programmes to cut down disease affected It is only since 2001, through the technology mission, that trees and replant them to enhance productivity. The large some efforts have been made towards enhancing the level of number of small producers has also limited the scope of collec- ­productivity. This was through technology mission – which tive action to some extent. a­ttempted connecting different stakeholders in coconut sector. Thus the first striking difference between the SSI of the two commodities is the fact that in the case of coconuts the various Coconut Technology Mission components are not tightly knit as in the case of rubber. Con­ The coconut technology mission introduced in 2001 envisages sequently, the SSI of the sector is diffused compared to the ­rubber the increase of production of coconuts from 5,167 million nuts to one. A second difference is that the producers are by and large 10,000 million nuts in the state. The productivity is proposed to small holders. be doubled from the existing level of 5,747 nuts per hectare. This has reflected in technology development and adoption in The mission is to have six mini-missions. The first one will con- many ways. There were attempts to develop HYV varieties in re- centrate on enhancing adoption of improved production techno­ search stations. Most of hybrid varieties were crosses of local logy by providing the required technical and financial support to West Coast Tall (WCT) and Chowghat Dwarf Orange. The control- farmers. The second one proposes to develop the coconut led experiments report that the yields of such hybrid varieties are processing industry in the state to tap the immense potential in on an average 15% to 20% higher than the local WCT variety the field of coconut product diversification and value addition, (Narayana et al 1991). However it was noted that the yield in- and pass on the benefits to farmers. The third mini-mission will crease was not very consistent, and an addition of one year of aim at developing and upgrading technical knowledge and skills data may even change the superiority of hybrids (ibid). of extension workers, farmers and entrepreneurs. The fourth one The adoption of HYV varieties for coconut cultivation has not will deal with the enhancing storage capacity in the public sector been impressive. The proportion of hybrid in the seedlings dis- for copra. The storage capacity augmentation is proposed in all tributed, as evident from Table 4, declined from nearly 33% in the 14 districts of the state depending upon the anticipated the late 1970s to 10% by the mid-1980s (Narayana et al 1991, r­equirement. The fifth one will deal with the establishment of a quoted in Narayana 1992). The department of agriculture which market intelligence network, development of marketing infra- distributed the seedlings shifted its attention to local varieties in structure and market promotion activities are proposed. The the late 1980s. Thus the impact of HYVs in coconut production sixth mini-mission will concentrate on research activities to be appeared to be minimal (Sivanandan 1985). This reduction in the undertaken for augmentation of production and productivity of number of seedlings of HYV distributed by the department of coconut and product diversification. a­griculture was in tune with the cultivators’ preference (ibid). There are some linkages between different nodes – produc- Thus farmers have rejected the hybrid varieties of coconut and tion, technology generation, extension, storage facilities, mar- went back to the local WCT during the 1980s. kets, workers’ training, government support – under the coconut Though scientists have found out in control experiments that technology mission. There seems to be an increase in producti­ the coconut yield can increase substantially under irrigated con- vity as part of this integrated approach to enhancing productivity ditions (for example, see Nair 1989), there was apprehension that through the use of technology in coconuts. a failure in irrigation (caused by extreme shortage of water) in one year would have a negative impact on yield for a number of 5 Summary and Conclusions consecutive years. This is so since a prolonged drought or a dry The results of our analysis is summarised in Table 5 (p 63). spell at critical period for coconut palm has a long duration im- NR has registered one of the highest growth rates in pact on its productivity (Murray 1977). Traditional varieties have producti­vity, among all agricultural crops in the country

62 february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE

Table 5: Summary of Findings Natural Rubber Coconut 1 Long-term growth in productivity Highest among all agricultural crops in the country Extremely low (just about (4% per annum) 2 Diffusion of new technologies High (almost 100%) Low (cannot be clearly estimated, data are not available) 3 Quality of the SSI-nature of inter action Tightly knit in existence for over five decades Multiplicity of actors-in existence only for three decades or so between the actors 4 Building blocks of the SSI 4.1 Knowledge and technology domain Relatively frequent issuance of new technologies by Relatively infrequent release of new technologies-Central the Rubber Research Institute of India-research wing Plantation Crops Research Institute (an ICAR Lab) plus state level of the Rubber Board Agricultural Universities in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and since 2001-the Technology Mission 4.2 Key actors and institutions (i) Licensing requirements for new Rubber growers as (i) Although there is a Coconut Development Board Act, 1979 it required by section 17 of the Rubber Production and does not have the same teeth as the Rubber Act. Marketing Act of 1947; (ii) Existence of capital and for a while even input Capital subsidies introduced recently-insignificant amounts-not subsidies for hastening adoption of new technologies much data. which existed over a long period of time. The capital subsidies covered a significant portion of the capital investments during the seven year gestation period. 4.3 Demand for new technologies Some what better articulated as the growers are more Demand for new technology is high, but poorly articulated by the organised and the supply through the Rubber Act growers, majority of whom are unorganised small and marginal ensured that the supply matched the demand farmers. The supply of new technologies has also been very sporadic. Source: Own Compilation. e­specially when compared to coconuts. One of the most proxi- no capital subsidies for the farmers to adopt the new mate cause of this high growth in yield is the introduction and t­echnologies. Moreover, the farmers themselves are not con- a­doption of new t­echnologies by the rubber farmers. The new vinced with the quality of new technologies developed which technologies were generated by the RRII and diffused by the r­educed its diffusion rate. However a positive change has taken Rubber Board by invoking certain legal provisions of the place in coconut’s SSI over the last two decades which appear R­ubber Act and by providing considerable sums of money in to be adopting a rubber like structure. Consequently one could terms of capital subsidies. In other words it has a very tightly also see some productivity increases. Our study, thus, once knit sectoral system of innovation. On the ­contrary, the again lend empirical support to the proposition that the c­oconut case presents us with a fragmented s­ectoral system of c­onstitution of the SSI does matter for new technologies to be innovation with a multiplicity of actors and with little or generated and diffused.

Note Malerba, Franco (2004): Sectoral Systems of Inno­ Technology and Nature”, South-Asia Bulletin, 1 The cost of generation of new technologies was vation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major 15(2):109-19. the expenditure on research expended by the Sectors in Europe (Cambridge University Press: Sivanandan, P K (1985): “Kerala’s Agricultural Per- Rubber Board and the cost of diffusion was prox- Cambridge). formance: Differential Trends and Determinants ied by the expenses on rubber plantation develop- Mani, Sunil (2009): “Why Is the Indian Pharmaceutical of Growth”, unpublished MPhil thesis, Centre for ment schemes (new and replanting) and exten- Industry More Innovative Than Its Telecommunica- ­Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram. sion training and supplies. tions Equipment Industry?” in Malerba Franco and Sunil Mani (ed.), Sectoral Systems of Innovation Annexure 1: High Yielding Varieties of Rubber and Production in Developing Countries: Actors, References Developed by the Rubber Research Institute of India Structure and Evolution (Cheltenham, UK and Clone Percentage Status Byerlee, D and G E Alex (1998): Strengthening N­ational Nothampton, Mass, USA: ­Edward Elgar), pp 27-56. Agricultural Research Systems: Policy Issues and Muliyar, M K (1983): Transfer of Technology in Planta­ RRII 105 Tjir 1 x G1 1 Category I* Good Practices (Washington DC: World Bank). tion Crops. RRII 414 RRII 105 x RRIC 100 Category I Echeverria, R G, E J Trigo and D Byerlee (1996): Institu­ Murray, D B (1977): “Coconut Palm” in Alvim P de T and RRII 430 RRII 105 x RRIC 100 Category I tional Change and Effective Financing of Agricultural T T Kozlowski (ed.), Ecophysiology of Tropical Crops Research in Latin America, Tech Pap 330 (Washing- (New York: Academic Press). RRII 5 Primary clone Category II** ton DC: World Bank). Nair, R R (1989): “Summer Irrigation Requirements of RRII 203 PB 86 x Mil 3/2 Category II Coconuts”, Indian Coconut Journal, 19 (12), 3-7. Hall, A J, N G Clark, R Sulaiman, M V K Sivamohan and RRII 417 RRII 105 x RRIC 100 Category II B Yoganand (2000): “New Agendas for Agricultur- Narayana, D, K N Nair, P Sivanandan, N Shanta and al Research in Developing Countries: Policy Analy- G N Rao (1991): “Coconut Development in Kerala, RRII 422 RRII 105 x RRIC 100 Category II sis and Institutional Implifications, Knowledge, Ex-Post Evaluation”, Occasional Paper Series, RRII 50 Primary clone Category III*** Policy and Technology, 13(1), 70-91. ­Centre for Development Studies. RRII 51 Primary clone Category III Hall, A J and B Yoganand (2002): “New Institutional Narayana, D (1992): “Interaction of Price and Technol- Arrangements in Agricultural R&D in Africa: Con- ogy in the Presence of Structural Specifications: An RRII 52 Primary clone Category III cepts and Case Studies”, Proc Workshop (Nairobi: Analysis of Crop Production in Kerala”, PhD disser- RRII 118 Mil 3/2 x Hil 28 Category III OCRISAT). tation (Kolkata: Indian Statistical Inst). RRII 176 Mil 3/2 x PB 5/60 Category III IAASTD (2009): “Global Report of the International Rubber Board, Indian Rubber Statistics, http://rubber- ­Assessment of Agricultural Science, Technology board.org.in/rubberstaticsdisplaypage.asp (ac- RRII 208 Mil 3/2 x AVROS 255 Category III and Development”, Washington. cessed 15 April 2010). RRII 300 Tjir 1 x PR 107 Category III Kangasniem, J (2002): “Financing Agricultural R­e­ – Annual Report (various issues), Kottayam, Rubber search by Producer Organisations in Africa”, Board, Ministry of Commerce. RRII 429 RRII 105 x RRIC 100 Category III p 81-104 (Wallingford: CABI). – (undated): Rubber Development in N-E: An * Category 1 is of plants for wide scale planting. It currently has only three clones – the RRII 105, 414 and 430; ­Overview, Kottayam, Rubber Board, Ministry Kasturibai, K V, S R Voleti and V Rajagopal (1988): ** Category 2 consists of clones that can be planted in 50% of “­Water Relations of Coconut Palms as Influenced by of Commerce. the area; and Environmental Variables”, Agric and Forest Meteoro­ Santhakumar, V and R Rajagopalan (1995): *** Category 3 is of plants meant for experimental purposes. logy, 43, 193-99. “Green Revolution in Kerala: A Discourse on Source: Rubber Board.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 63 SPECIAL ARTICLE SAMEEKSHA TRUST BOOKS China after 1978: Craters on the Moon The breathtakingly rapid economic growth in China since 1978 has attracted world-wide attention. But the condition of more than 350 million workers is abysmal, especially that of the migrants among them. Why do the migrants put up with so much hardship in the urban factories? Has post-reform China forsaken the earlier goal of “socialist equality”? What has been the contribution of rural industries to regional development, alleviation of poverty and spatial inequality, and in relieving the grim employment situation? How has the meltdown in the global economy in the second half of 2008 affected the domestic economy? What of the current leadership’s call for a “harmonious society”? Does it signal an important “course correction”? A collection of essays from the Economic & Political Weekly seeks to find tentative answers to these questions, and more.

Pp viii + 318 ISBN 978-81-250-3953-2 2010 Rs 350 Windows of Opportunity By K S KRISHNASWAMY

A ruminative memoir by one who saw much happen, and not happen, at a time when everything seemed possible and promising in India. K S Krishnaswamy was a leading light in the Reserve Bank of India and the Planning Commission between the 1950s and 1970s. He offers a ringside view of the pulls and pressures within the administration and outside it, the hopes that sustained a majority in the bureaucracy and the lasting ties he formed with the many he came in contact with. Even more relevant is what he has to say about political agendas eroding the Reserve Bank’s autonomy and degrading the numerous democratic institutions since the late 1960s.

Pp xii + 190 ISBN 978-81-250-3964-8 2010 Rs 440 Global Economic & Financial Crisis In this volume economists and policymakers from across the world address a number of aspects of the global economic crisis. One set of articles discusses the structural causes of the financial crisis. A second focuses on banking and offers solutions for the future. A third examines the role of the US dollar in the unfolding of the crisis. A fourth area of study is the impact on global income distribution. A fifth set of essays takes a long-term view of policy choices confronting the governments of the world. A separate section assesses the downturn in India, the state of the domestic financial sector, the impact on the informal economy and the reforms necessary to prevent another crisis. This is a collection of essays on a number of aspects of the global economic and financial crisis that were first published in the Economic & Political Weekly in 2009.

Pp viii + 368 ISBN 978-81-250-3699-9 2009 Rs 350 1857

A compilation of essays that were first published in the EPW in a special issue in May 2007. Held together with an introduction by Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, the essays – that range in theme and subject from historiography and military engagements, to the dalit viranganas idealised in traditional songs and the “unconventional protagonists” in mutiny novels – converge on one common goal: to enrich the existing national debates on the 1857 Uprising. The volume has 18 essays by well-known historians who include Biswamoy Pati, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Peter Robb and Michael Fisher. The articles are grouped under five sections: ‘Then and Now’, ‘Sepoys and Soldiers’, ‘The Margins’, ‘Fictional Representations’ and ‘The Arts and 1857’.

Pp viii + 364 ISBN 978-0-00106-485-0 2008 Rs 295

Available from Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd www.orientblackswan.com Mumbai Chennai New Delhi Kolkata Bangalore Bhubaneshwar Ernakulam Guwahati Jaipur Lucknow Patna Chandigarh Hyderabad Contact: [email protected]

64 february 5, 2011 vol xlvI no 6 EPW Economic & Political Weekly