崔贞媛个人资料,滝沢萝拉,曾丽仪
| 研究巴西的生产效率和农业生产力 根据研究（Taylor, Drummond, & Gomes, 1986）所涉及的补贴计划的在发展中国家的有效性，信贷计划被称为prodemata，通过实证结果得出的结论是传统农民的生产力的提高表明prodemata已对技术效率没有影响，对资源配置效率略有负面影响（它被定义为一个理论测度的优势和实用的计划或实际选择的资源分配或分配）。 “贫穷但高效”的假说，农业信贷条款将在提高生产率是无效的，因为投资收入的机会是有限的。传统农民的假设是有效的但面临技术壁垒。 它进一步分析了巴西信用经济学和得出的结论是资本对小农场利用率低，信贷将缓解资金短缺和改善输出。然而，在分析农业生产中发现的技术壁垒存在将防止从资本形成和收入产生的信贷计划的影响。 巴西南部在研究被认为是“投资资本公式的增加”的传统农业. Examining Production Efficiency And Agriculture Productivity In Brazil According to research (Taylor, Drummond, & Gomes, 1986) which relates to effectiveness of subsidized credit programs in improving the productivity of traditional farmers in developing countries the credit program known as PRODEMATA it is concluded by empirical results suggest that PRODEMATA has had no desire impact on technical efficiency and a slightly negative effect on allocative productivity (it is defined as a theoretical measure of the advantage or utility resulting from a planned or actual choice in the distribution or distribution of resources). The "poor but efficient" hypothesis states that the provision of agricultural credit will be ineffective in improving productivity and incomes since investment opportunities are limited. Traditional farmers are hypothesized to be efficient but faced with technological barriers that can- not be overcome by the mere influx of capital provided by credit programs alone. It is further analyzed that the economics of credit in Brazil and concluded there was an underutilization of capital on small farms and that credit would relieve capital shortages and improve output. However, in analyzing farm-level production in it is found that technological barriers were present which would prevent credit programs from having a significant impact on capital formation and incomes. Studying traditional agriculture in southern Brazil concluded "that in- creased investment capital formation, such as use of mechanized equipment and fertilizer, alone is not the answer to increasing crop production. Better management, Information sources and consumption of resources are as significant and should be equally emphasized if any advantage is to be anticipated from increasing disbursement on these inputs." The implication here is that, while credit availability may afford traditional farmers the opportunity to invest in modernized inputs, there is no guarantee that these inputs will be used in such manner as to recognize the full level of output gains possible. It thus seems appropriate that the effectiveness of subsidized credit in traditional farming depends on concerns of technical as well as allocative efficiency. The research above illustrated credit program named as PRODEMATA was instituted The result was that participated in the program compared to those of nonparticipating farms indicate that the program was not successful as measured by technical efficiency gains the reason behind this was allocative efficiency there if allocative efficiency is not there results cannot be achieved by such credit programs therefore production efficiency is depend on allocative efficiency. According to research by (Stefanou & Saxena, 1988) it is stated that various kinds of trainings can help the farm operator to enhance profitability. When this training influences production decision making, it is relevant to consider allocative efficiency. This focuses on the impact of training on operator decision making and develops an implement able theoretical framework that links training variables to allocative efficiency. However, relative efficiency can be achieved for four of six possible input combinations. Education and experience are found to be substitutes and play a significant role in the level of efficiency. It has long been believed that differential access to subsidized credit from government sources plays an important role in explaining observed differences in input use and consequently in productivity across farms in developing countries. As a result, it is frequently argued that rural development must originate with agricultural credit reform. There is, however, little empirical evidence that farm production has been effectively constrained by lack of access to formal or government controlled credit. While credit reform may be desirable for any number of reasons, reform of other input markets may have a larger impact on farm incomes. In other cases, the small amounts necessary to finance working capital requirements may be readily available at relatively low cost from "informal" sources such as relatives and friends and other farm households. Households also may be able to substitute for formal credit through a variety of rental markets. Under such conditions lack of access to formal credit may not constrain the production decisions of farm households. The formal sector borrowers do have an advantage in the tenancy market, this advantage results not from their access to formal credit, but from their superior resource position, particularly as it relates to irrigated land. Because households do not equilibrate access to formal credit through the land rental market, such access does not determine variable input use. Informal credit does improve the probability of renting land for households who lack access to the formal sector. The effect of informal credit, however, appears to be less important than ownership of resources such as irrigation, draft power, and family labor. According to research by (Murgai, Ali, & Byerlee, 2001) measuring the productivity of Pakistani and Indian Punjab’s by measuring trends in total factor productivity for production systems in both states since the origination of the Green Revolution. It is determined that Indian Punjab has more productivity than Pakistani Punjab. The reason Indian Punjab is more productive Statistics from official resources of Pakistan have frequently viewed as motivated by a desire to current a picture rosier than the ugly and terrifying ground truth and hence often viewed as erroneous and on the superior side in case of efficiency and lower when it comes to scarcity and population expansion. Two of the main cash crops of the two provinces are rice and wheat. Pakistan's yields in both crops are far behind the other Punjab. For instance, Indian Punjab has shown an annual production growth rate of 11.03 per cent for rice whiles it has been a mere 3.08 per cent for Pakistani Punjab. The Pakistani Punjab output was 13.13 million tons from 5.9 million ha. While the Indian Punjab produced 14.36 million tons of wheat in 1996- 98 from 3.3 million hectares. Even in other periods, productivity on the other side of Wahga has been consistently higher. As a result, the Indian state is following a policy of trying to produce more from less land while in Pakistan, more land is brought under cultivation every year to enhance the total yield and meet domestic consumption needs. At the same time, it is well known that Pakistan can ill afford to increase area of cultivated land because of scarcity as also deteriorating quality of water. The difference between the productivity of the two sides reflects sadly on the state of affairs in Pakistan's Punjab. According to a study by three Pakistani and Indian experts, "if India were to produce the same amount of rice with Pakistan's productivity level, it would have to devote an additional area of more than one million hectares under rice". The picture of wheat is worse. Pakistan would have to bring an area of about 'four million ha' to reach Indian Punjab's produce. The experts ask the question why yields vary so much under fairly similar 'agro-climatic, socio economic and managerial conditions'? Their analyses identify some of the factors contributing to this discrepancy in productivity. They cite productivity performance as partly caused by differences in input use and cropping intensity but link it with the use of technology and resource quality too. The lag time between adoption of Green Revolution technologies and recognition of efficiency gains is related to learning- induced efficiency gains, better utilization of capital investments over problems and time with the ordinary methods of productivity measurement that downwardly bias measurements, particularly throughout the Green Revolution period. Secondly the input growth accounted for most of the production growth in both Punjabs during the time period under study. Third, intensification, especially in the wheat-rice system, resulted in resource degradation (resource degradation means exploiting substitution possibilities among inputs and crops) in both Punjabs. Data from Pakistan shows that resource degradation reduced overall productivity growth from technical change and from education and infrastructure investment by one-third. These conclusions imply the need for policies that encourage agricultural productivity and sustainability through public investments in education, roads, and research and extension; and that diminish resource degradation by decreasing or eliminating subsidies that promote intensification of inputs. |
