Four Decades of an East Laguna Village

7/31/2019 Four Decades of an East Laguna Village

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/four-decades-of-an-east-laguna-village 1/48

Click to edit Master subtitle style

Four Deca esof

SocioeconomicSurvey in a

Rice Village inEast Laguna

Kei KajisaIRRI SSD

IRRI Thursday SeminarMarch 29, 2012

East Laguna village in the early70s.



The study

village



Four decades mean…

2008 After Rice Price Crises



Terminology

Land holdingstatus

Land owner

Landless

Farming status

Landlord

(Absentee landlord)

Landlord-farm-operator

Tenant Farmer/Farmoperator

Farmer/Farm-operat

or



Interactions of 5 Modernization Forces

• Resource endowment –

Population pressure (advanced med and pub.Health)

• Agriculture – Green Revolution (scientific ag.) – Land reform (social reform against the past

colonialism)

• Public investments – Development of irrigation, roads, and schools

• Globalization – Non-farm activities (easier link to foreign

markets)Farming and Livelihoods of rural people

Intensive, continuous monitoring of one village as one socialobservatory



13-round IRRI-SSD surveys

19741966

Umeharasurvey

1st IRRI SSD

survey

IR8 1980• Green Revolution

• Land reform

•High ways

(LostDecade)

•FDI and factories inLaguna area

• Populationpressure

1950s

1958

1962

1958•NIA Irrigationsystem

•Landfrontiersclosed

•Barrio school1965Countryroad

• Masagana 99

2007

Latest IRRI

SSD survey

2011

•NIA system

Rehabilitatio

1999•Opening of sub-division

2006 TyphooMilenyo



Initial Condition of the

Village• Began to be settled in the 1880s.• Rainfed rice monoculture• Sharecropping contract (landlords

in local towns nearby) 50:50 share• No significant class differentiation

w/in the village (all are poor)

First wave of modernization: pop

growth



Growth of population and rice land, East Laguna Village,1918-1997

Total Population (100 persons)

0

3

6

9

12

15

1918 1940 1960 1966 1974 1976 1980 1983 1987 1995 1997

Year

0

24

48

72

96

120Population/land ratio (Persons/ha) Paddy area (ha)

Total Population

Population/ha

Paddyarea(ha)

Source: Hayami and Kikuchi

Population Pressure onLand



1966 1976 1987 1995 2007

Total

Non FarmWorker

AgriculturalLaborer

Farmer

Household

70%

30%

50%

50%

34%

62%

21%

62%

17%

59%

32%

9%

Distribution of household by type, East Laguna village, 1966 - 2007

66

109

242

428

158

Population Pressure

Difficulty in landacquisition

Opening of new sub-division

Source: Hayami and Kikuchi (2000) & IRRI SSD



1.

0

2.

0

3

.0

4

.0

5.

0

6

.0

1

955

1

960

1

965

1

970

1

975

1

980

1

985

1

990

1

995

Wet

Dry

Distribution of rice varieties adopted by farmers, average yield per hectare, and

rice price received by farmers, East Laguna Village, 1965-2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

R i c e p r i c e

D e f l a

t e d b y

C P I ( P / k g

)

R i c e y i e l d s p e r h e c t a r e

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f

r i c e v a r i e t i e s

%

o f f a r m e r s a

d o p

t e d

DS 2011 Triple-2 50% (introducedby a wedding guest fromNE)RC-10 10%RC18 10%

Source: IRRI SSD Database, Hayami and



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1961 1968 1975 1982 1989 1997 2008

Year

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

P r o d u c t i o n o f u n m i l l e d

r i c e ( m i l l i o n M T )

R

e a l p r i c e o f m i l l e d r i c

e ( 2 0 0 8 ) U S $ / t o n )

Real price

WorldProduction

Trends in world production and realprice of rice,1961-2008

Source: Production: USDA, 13May2008Rice Price: 2008 is May 2008 price. Relate to Thai rice5%-broken deflated by G-5 MUV Index deflator

(adjusted based on April 17, 2008 data update)Source: www.worldbank.org

Poor HHs’ food securityhas been better off

throughout 80s and 90s

http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.worldbank.org/



Labor utilization in rice production per hectarewet season, East Laguna Village, 1966 - 1995

28

10

1

3

32

6

582

28

1

19

10

3

2

38

7

10

8

22

34

1

12

10

15

2

7

9

9

9

13

26

4

Total Hired Total Hired Total Hired

Others

Harv/ThreshWeedi

ngCropEstab.Land

Prep.




Impact of Green

Revolution• Q P (locally and globally)↑ ↓

– “Agricultural treadmill” –

Benefit of net sellers is little. Netbuyers (marginal farmers, landless,urban people) has been better off.

• ↑ in demand for hired labor



Land Reform Programs

(1970s~ )• “Operation Leasehold”

– Sharecropping leasehold tenancy w/

land rent fixed at lower-than-marketrate (50% 25%)

• “Operation Land Transfer” – Land ownership to tenants

(amortization payment equivalent to25% of harvest)

“Land to the tillers”



o w n e

1 %

l e a s e h o

2 9 %

S u b - R e n t

7 %

S ha r

6 3 %

owne

2%

leasehol

63%

Sub-Rent

8%

Sha r

27%

Pawning

Ownershi

1%owned

29%

leasehol49%

Sub-Rente

6%

Share15%

owne25%

leasehol

62%

Sub-Rente

7%

Share

6%

1966 1976 1996 2006

1970 1980Operation OperationLeasehold Land TransferDistribution of rice land by tenure status, East Laguna

Village, 1966-1995

Land Reform and Land TenureStatus


R k th L d



Remarks on the LandReform

• Resulted in an inactive land rentalmarket

– “What if my tenant went to the land reformoffice and my land was transferred to thetenant?”

– Disguised tenancy. Unwillingness tooutsource completely.

• Little chance of landless ag. Labor

to be a tenant. – Disappearance of “agricultural ladder”.

• Ag labor tenant owner cultivator

– Oversupply of ag labor and low wage rate

–

Nullify labor demand increase



1966 1976 1987 1995 2007

Total

Non FarmWorker

AgriculturalLaborer

Farmer

Household

70%

30%

50%

50%

34%

62%

21%

62%

17%

59%

32%

9%

Distribution of household by type, East Laguna village, 1966 - 2007

66

109

242

428

158

Population Pressure




Shares of income from rice production per hectare, wet season,East Laguna Village, 1966-1995

1966 1982 1995

1740

2920

325

0

23%33%44%

26%

35%

Hired laborer

Farm operator

Land owner

Gross income(kg of paddy)

13%

53

%

50

%

24

%

The benefit to the hired

labor increased but not asmuch as that of farmoperators.

Source: Hayami and Kikuchi



Transformation of a rice village

Trad.Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MVs

Farm

Income ↑

Time

Land

reform

Immediate impact of GR



Average number of school years per adult male(21-64 years old), East Laguna Village, 1966-2006

Largefarme

r

Largefarme

r

Largefarme

r

Largefarme

r

Smallfarme

r

Smallfarme

r

Smallfarme

r

Smallfarme

r

Agric.labore

r

Agric.labore

r

Agric.labore

r

Agric.labore

r

Non-farm

worker

Non-farm

worker

Largefarme

r

Smallfarme

r

Agric.labore

r

Non-farm

worker

Impact on schoolingInvestments

Source: IRRI SSD

The increase can be attributed to theincrease among young generations.




Job opening ads at a municipal hallFujitsu’s job opening ad

Small garment factory (Laguna) Bakery in the East Laguna Village



0

. 5

1

0

. 5

1

0

. 5

1

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

1 3 16

30 41 42

43

D e n s i t y

Schooling yearsGraphs by typoccup22

Farming Ag/Casual labor Overseas work

Self employment Unskilled work at smallent

Unskilled work at largeent

Technical/skilled work Completion years

Primary= 6Secondary= 10Tertiary= 14

Distribution of schooling years by occupationKajisa

Schooling and Non-farm Jobs



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Overseas work Self-employment

Unskilledlabor Smallenterprises

Unskilledlabor Largeenterprises

Technical/Skilledwork

Impact of Network Change

Family/Relative network changeProb. at average network size 0.03 0.37 0.10 0.19 0.07Prob. after increasing one person 0.03 0.41 0.16 0.17 0.08Change 0 0.04 0.06 -0.02 0.01Friend network changeProb. at average network size 0.01 0.35 0.13 0.18 0.08Prob. after increasing one person 0.01 0.37 0.15 0.17 0.09Change 0 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

Acquaintance network changeProb. at average network size 0.04 0.34 0.12 0.17 0.07Prob. after increasing one person 0.03 0.37 0.12 0.20 0.08Change 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01

Impact of schooling year changeSchooling years’ increase from primary to secondary level

Prob. at the completion of primaryschool

0.02 0.50 0.08 0.11 0.00

Impacts of changes in personal networksand schooling years by occupation(Simulation results)

Kajisa



Percentage composition of average household income,East Laguna Village, 1974-95.

14 8 15 22 27 15

18 28 16 8 24 6

51 17 18 4 9 1

13

Non-farm origin 64

38

36

Farm origin 62

87

1974/76

1980/83

1995/96

0% 20% 40% 100%60% 80%

Rice Non-rice Farm wage

Non-farm ent. Non-farm wage Others

Sharp increase in Non-farmincome

Source: IRRI SSD



Average per-capita incomes (CPI deflation) by type of household (1000 pesos), East Laguna Village, 1974/76 to 1995/96

Large

farmer

Small

farmer

Agric.

laborer

Large

farmer

Small

farmer

Agric.

laborer

Non-

farmworker

100 55 23 53%

100 57 35 %

17

9

6

33

18

8

17

100



0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 Year

1966 54

1974 62

1983 77

1995 89

I n c o m e

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 Year

1974 45 68

1983 45 67

1995 51 56

% Gini % PoorIncomedistribution

Landdistribution

L a n d

% Gini

Changes in land and income distribution, East Laguna Village, 1966-1995

Gini coefficient calculated across individuals’ under the assumption that a household income was distributed equally amongthe members of each household.

Percentage of population having incomes below the poverty line. The poverty line is defined as an annual per-capita incomerequired to satisfy basic nutritional requirements (2000 calories) and other basic needs. The poverty lines in respective

years are estimated by deflating the 1994 poverty line by CPI estimated by the National Statistical Coordination Board(1996) for the rural sector of the Philippines.

Note.% Gini:

% Poor:

Source: Hayami Kikuchi




Trad.Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MV

FarmIncome ↑

SchoolingInvestmentsTo children

Non-Farmincome ↑

Time

Equity inIncomedistribution,maintained

Heterogeneityin occupations

Land

reform

Aging of farmers

Long-term impact of GR

Factories in

Industrialzones

Labor wage rate from 1965



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

P / d a y ( 2 0 0 0

p r i c e s )

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

k g

/ d a y

Ag. wage (deflator=CPI)

Ind. wage (deflator=CPI) Ag. wage (deflator=rice price)

Figure 2. Changes in real wage rates in the non-farm sector and

in a rice village in the Laguna lowland rice belt,

rough estimates, 1965-2002Kikuchi (2002)

2011

P 131 /d

Labor wage rate from 1965to 2011

Labor is abundant foragriculture at the same

low wage rate!

C li t d i ti i f



Complicated incentives in farmmanagement

• Abundant labor is still available at the same low

cost. – I-1. Outsourcing of farming, rather than

mechanization

• But many of them are outsiders (new migrants,

poorer people in nearby villages) – I-2. Management through Kabisilya (foreman)

, rather than direct hiring

• Inactive land-rental market because of the landreform

– I-3. Unwilling to outsource faming completely(so that the owners can still claim they arefarming and the tenants are not the tillers).

• Vested interest among old ex-farmers (retainingharvesting right of particular parcels)



managementActivity Arrangement (DS 2011)

LP Cont. w/ a tractor owner (per ha. base)

TP Cont . w/ Kabsiliya (per ha. base)

CC

(1) Farmers

(2) Upahan (ag. Labor, daily wage base)(3) Procientuhan (10% sharecropping formanagement)

HV

(1) Hunusan ( % of harvest)(2) Gama (% of harvest w/ weeding service)(3) Pakyau (outsourcing to Kabsiliya, per ha.

base)(4) Hunusan + sub-contracting to Kabsiliya

THCont. w/ a threshing machine owner (9-10% of harvest)

Almost every season every farmer has tothink of what is the optimal laborarrangement for him/her in that particularseason.




Trad.Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MV

FarmIncome ↑


Non-Farmincome ↑

Time

Aging

of farmer s


Outsourcing of

farming

Complicatedlabor

arrangement

Abundant

labor in poorer villages

Inflexible

rule/vestedinterest

Land

reform

Factories in

Industrialzones




Percentage of paddy fields cultivated by the villagers by irrigation condition, EastLaguna Village, 1985-2012

Changes in irrigation

Systemrehabilitation byNIA in

2011

Cost of irrigationNIA: 1,500/ha (WS) 2,500/ha (DS)Pump: 5,000 /ha (WS) 10,000/ha (DS)

Source: IRRI SSD




Trad.Rice

Village

GR

Irrigation

MV

FarmIncome ↑


Non-Farmincome ↑

Time

Aging

of farmer s


Outsourcing of

farming

CollectiveirrigationMng ↓

Complicatedlabor

arrangement

CostlyPrivate pumpirrigation

Abundant

labor in poorer villages

Inflexible

rule/vestedinterest

Land

reform

Factories in

Industrialzones




Impact of Typhoon Milenyo

An Overview of Milenyo•On September 25, 2006•Php6.5B (US$130M) damages toinfrastructure and agriculture.•496,325 homes were totally or

partially destroyed.•127 deaths, 323 injured, and 45missing.



Electricity supply was cut.



Completely damagedhouse



Red Cross Aid (photo taken in

2011)




Fallen mango trees



Damages to rice fields

Overall Damages of Milenyo



Overall Damages of MilenyoaCrop share for porcientuhan and harvest share for wage workers. bCrop share on rented-out plots.

Kind of damage Farmer Landless Nonagricultural

Number % Number % Number %

None (0) 10 24 63 42 108 51

Lost house (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0

House seriously damage (2) 5 12 39 26 62 30

Lost utensils (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lost productive assets (4) 1 2 1 1 5 2

Lost job (5) 0 0 1 1 5 2

Income declined (6) 9 22 16 11 6 3Lost members (7) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Members got injured or sicked (8) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Crop damage (9) 1 2 5 3a 13 6b

Others (10) 0 0 0 0 4 2

Combination of (2) and (4) 0 0 0 0 1 0



Combination of (2) and (9) 1 2 0 0 2 1Combination of (4) and (6) 0 0 2 1 0 0

Combination of (6) and (9) 7 17 9 6 a 1 0

Combination of (2), (6) and (9) 4 10 1 1a 0 0

Combination of (1), (6) and (9) 0 0 0 0 1 0


Total 41 100 149 100 210 100

Sawada et al

Damages to Farm endowments and harvests



Damages to Farm endowments and harvests

•Damages to paddyPaddy got wet when the fields were submerged in water andwet paddy commands a lower price in the market.

Total paddy harvest 151,160 kg (the expected harvest was222,966 kg) 32% decline by Milenyo

“(Subjective) Decline in paddy price”: Php8.89 per kg toPhp7.44 per kg (16% reduction).

•On the average, Per HH loss of paddy is Php260 the minimum wage rate of

Php250.00 per day. Per HH loss of mango tree is Php680 per household 2.72

times the minimum wage rate per day.Farm endowment Number completely lost

Number heavilydamaged

Estimated (subjective)value lost (PHP)

Avocado 4 5 2,100Banana 441 402 17,755

Jackfruit 17 42 5,400

Mango 239 98 271,950

Rambutan 18 27 26,525

Chicken 19 0 2,250

Pigs 7 0 9,100Sawada et al

Households’ Risk Coping Mechanisms



Coping mechanism

Farmer households

(%)

Landlesshouseholds

(%)

Nonagriculturalhouseholds

(%)1.Reduce food consumption 27 76 47

1.1 Rice 0 15 8

1.2 Protein 5 27 13

1.3 Food taken outside 22 34 26

2. Switch consumption to own produce 12 34 22

3. Reduce child schooling 2 1 4

4. Reduce medical expenses 0 3 3

5. of valuable items 0 4 66. Emergency borrowing 33 50 30

6.1 Bank 5 3 2

6.2 Relatives 12 13 10

6.3 Friends 3 7 3

6.4 Neighbors 0 6 0

6.5 Moneylender 10 6 5

6.6 Pawnshop 0 0 0

6.7 Sari-sari store 3 15 10

7. Emigration 0 0 0

8. Received remittances 25 16 21

9. Aid from local government and NGO 46 65 58

10. Nonfarm employment 85 60 94Sawada et al



Risk Coping Mechanism• A decrease in the expenditure on relatively more

expensive sources of protein (such as pork) is themost common reaction among landless HHs.

• Nonfarm employment played a crucial role as aninsurance mechanism.

• The community networks in securing emergencyloans and the personal networks in receivingremittances were particularly important for thelandless poor.

•

The active local government participation inmanaging the disaster was considered by the pooras another important factor that allowed them tocope with the disaster.

After 4 decades of



After 4 decades of transformation…

• The village is not a “pure” rice village

anymore. – Non-farm workers: 59% – (rice is still important; paddy fields are

fully cultivated; yield is high.)

• Rice farming is becoming moredifficult because

– it requires skillful labor management – it requires collective irrigation

management among heterogeneousmembers. (otherwise, they need to useexpensive pump water.)

•

Ad ti t



Advertisement• Long term village studies

reveal – Dynamics of transformation – Long term impact of

technologies, in association withother modernization factors

– Potential and bottlenecks forfurther development in the

future.• SSD’s activities

– The Central Luzon Loop survey, –

Bohol Irrigation System (4-season

A k l d t



AcknowledgementsGreat

Predecessors Yujiro Hayami

Masao Kikuchi

Randy Barker

Mahabub Hossain

Available at IRRI GiftShop, for those whoare interested in theearly period of thevillage

Current and ex-

SSD staff Pie Moya

Esther Marciano

Fe Gascon

Lui Bambo

Raph AranilMirla Domingo

Tintin Doctolero

Collaborators

Jonna P. Estudillo

Nobuhiko Fuwa

Yasuyuki Sawada

Yuki Higuchi

Above all, my deepest gratitude goes to the villagers of the East Laguna Village.

Four Decades of an East Laguna Village

Documents

Transcript of Four Decades of an East Laguna Village