This argument is based on the findings of cross-sectional data, although the results which are being discussed in this section are

for pooled data. It is done because pooled data do not have such information. It is assumed that even if the use of tractor was in its infancy during the period covered by pooled data, yet the effects should be of the same nature. The difference, as one may expect, may be of scale not of nature.

positively. But it is not clear which type of labor (out of 'FL' and 'CL') will increase when implements increase. Since both ’FL* and ’CL' have positive coefficients any one or both may increase/decrease as implements increase/decrease. The case of 'PHL' is different, the coefficient with it is negative.

4.6 Effect of Bullock Labor on Labor Use

Bullock labor is complementary to human labor on the farm, especially in ploughing and transportation. Thus more use of bullock labor days (BLD) will need more human labor days. But the amount of labor spent on ploughing or transportation may or may not be very big compared to labor absorbed by all other farm operations. Thus the importance of this variable in the 'labor use functions' depends on the relative importance of these operations in aggregate labor input.

The estimated coefficients of 'BLD' are insignificant in all the 'labor use functions' except for 'PHL'. The coefficients with 'TL' and 'FL' are positive and those with 'CL' and 'PHL' are negative. The signs, therefore, are as expected because ploughing is mostly done by

'FL' and 'TL' is mostly made up of 'FL'.

The negative sign of the estimated coefficient with 'CL' is easily understandable in the light of above. In Punjab's agriculture 'CL' is very rarely put behind the plough. However, the negative and significant coefficient with 'PHL' is puzzling. Generally it is expected that 'PHL' is a substitute for 'FL' in ploughing. The sign of the coefficient may be suggestive of the trend which is clear in 1981-82 despite the considerable decrease in 'BLD*- the use of 'PHL' increased in the sense that now almost all the farm categories are using it. It may be due, as observed by BardhanC1978) in the Indian context, to more timeliness required in various farm operations in the

new farm technologies.

4.7 Time Trend

The time trend shows positive and significant correlation with 'TL', 'FLf and 'CL' as could be expected. Since both the sets of data do not have information on labor use by varieties of seed, it is not possible to see the effects of new seeds on labor use. However, as explained in section 1.2 (Chapter 1) above, the time covered by pooled data is mainly characterised by varietal change than the change in technique, i.e. the change in the mode of farm power. Therefore, time is used as a proxy for the effects of varietal change on labor use. Also the time approximates the effects of other changes in agriculture which farmers adopted in order to modernize their agricultural business. The positive sign of this coefficient with 'TL' and ' FL' shows that changes in technologies during this period affected labor use positively. Not only during this period, the process continued even after that. It can be seen by looking on Table:2.3. Labor use during 1966-82 has increased considerably.

The sign of the time parameter with respect to ' PHL' is negative and significant (Table:4.2). Increased productivity due to the seed-fertilizer revolution might have caused this.

Relative and absolute share of ’CL' decreased and that of ’PHL' increased in 1981-82 as compared with 1966-72 period (Table:2.2). When compared with the sign of the time trend in the ' labor use functions' for 'CL' and 'PHL' in the period 1966-72 both look contradictory. This contradiction can be resolved if it is assumed that the reaction shown to newly introduced technologies by farmers during 1966-72 was an adjustment period. Therefore, when farmers adopted new technologies in initial years they might have been doing

so as a trial, and thus meeting increased needs of labor from family sources and, in order to minimize risks, hiring ’CL' only when necessary. But by 1981-82 a new equilibrium should have been reached in farm business. Thus they changed their attitude and started using more 'PHL' as new technologies needed more timeliness (Bardhan 1978). The use of ’C L ’ therefore went down.

4.8 Effect of Family Size on Labor Use

The estimated coefficients of ’family size' are positive with the function for *TL’ and ’F L ’, negative with ’C L ’ and ’P H L ’ as could be expected. If more family members are available less hired (casual as well as permanant) labor will be required. The estimated coefficient in the function for 'FL* and ’C L ’ are significant. Thus the larger the family size the more ’F L ’ will be used and less ’C L ’ will be required. Here ’F L ’ seems to be a substitute for 'CL'. This fact is obvious from Table:2.4 above. Again the reason for this substitution may be due to increased profitability in agriculture.

4.9 Summary

Main findings of this chapter may be summarized as follows:

(1) Cultivated area per farm is negatively and significantly correlated with ’T L ’ and ’FL'. However the coefficients of ’C A ’ are positive and insignificant with ’C L ’ and ’P H L ’. Therefore, farm size is very crucial in labor absorption in agriculture because the family provides most of the farm labor.

(2) Gross revenue is important in the use of ’TL' and ’C L ’. The coefficients are positive in all the ’labor use functions'.

(3) The coefficients of chemical fertilizers and labor use are negative and significant in 'TL', 'FL' and ’CL'. In 'PHL' it is positive but insignificant. Thus fertilizers alone seems to be labor displacing at the margin

(4) Implements are not an important factor in deciding the levels of labor use in agriculture.

(5) Time tend as could be expected is positive and significant in 'TL', fF L ’ and ’C L ’ but negative and significant in ’P HL’.

(6) Family size is not important in ’T L ’ use. However, its coefficient is positive and significant in ’F L ’ and negative and significant in ’C L ’ and ’PHL', as could be expected.