productivity and comparative advantage in rice agriculture in

PRODUCTIVITY AND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN RICE AGRICULTURE 345[Asian Economic Journal 1998 Vol 12 No 3] 345[Asian Economic Journal 2004 Vol 18 No 4] 345

Productivity and Comparative Advantage inRice Agriculture in South-East Asia Since 1870

Pierre van der EngSchool of Business and Information Management The Australian National University

Rice long dominated the agricultural economies of South-East Asia Given theeconomic predominance of agriculture the development of rice production hada significant bearing on the economies in the region This article explains why thecountries of mainland South-East Asia long dominated the international rice marketIt quantifies labor productivity in rice production and argues that simple low-costand labor-extensive but low-yielding production technology allowed farmers inmainland South-East Asia to achieve significantly higher levels of labor product-ivity than in the more densely populated rice-producing areas in South-East Asiaand Japan High levels of labor productivity were a major source of comparativeadvantage in rice production for Burma Thailand and Southern Vietnam

Key words agriculture Asia productivity rice technology

JEL classification codes N55 Q16 Q17

I Introduction

As the main staple food rice long dominated the agricultural economies ofSouth-East Asia Given the economic predominance of agriculture developmentsin rice production had a significant bearing on the economies in the regionTherefore an analysis of these developments can help to understand economicchange or stagnation in the region The countries of South-East and East Asiaare often lumped together and typified by their main staple food1 However

I am grateful to Randolph Barker Jean-Pascal Bassino Taco Bottema Peter Timmer Kees vander Meer and Jeffrey Williamson for their comments on previous versions of this paper1 Rice-producing South-East Asia comprises an area including Myanmar Thailand Laos CambodiaVietnam The Philippines Malaysia and Indonesia Rice-producing East Asia comprises JapanNorth and South Korea Eastern China and Taiwan This article compares productivity in the mainrice-producing areas of South-East Asia with Japan The geographical coverage of this paper istherefore different from what Oshima (1987) has labeled lsquoMonsoon Asiarsquo which includes IndiaBangladesh and Sri Lanka

ASIAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL 346

substantial differences in the technologies used to produce rice particularly inSouth-East Asia are ignored in efforts to generalize the development experienceof the region

In broad terms but largely on the basis of China and Japan Bray (19831986) and Oshima (1983 1987) argued that most of Asia was densely popu-lated and that only irrigated rice could sustain high population densitiesbecause it produced higher yields than other staple foods Such yields couldonly be achieved with high inputs of labor per hectare on small farms Forthat reason mechanization of agriculture and therefore large-scale agriculturalproduction as in Western Europe was impossible In short rice productionin Asia offered few opportunities for producers to reap economies of scaleand higher levels of labor productivity unlike wheat production in WesternEurope

Unfortunately this thesis takes no account of the fact that particularly inSouth-East Asia population densities varied considerably and that farmers inrice-exporting countries were apparently able to produce rice more economicallythan colleagues in rice-importing countries such as Japan Hence this interpre-tation is at best applicable to the densely populated parts of South-East Asiarather than the rice-exporting countries of mainland South-East Asia Few at-tempts have actually been made to quantify long-term changes in labor produc-tivity in rice agriculture or to compare levels of labor productivity across therice-producing countries in Asia Such estimates help to assess whether Asianrice farmers were indeed unable to achieve higher levels of labor productivityThey may also help to understand the basic causes of the comparative advantageof the rice-exporting countries

The next section discusses the position of South-East Asia in the inter-national rice economy Section III highlights the paradigms that have beenused to understand the development of rice production technology SectionIV argues that not land productivity but labor productivity is the key factorin understanding comparative advantage in rice production This sectionuses disparate historical estimates of labor input per hectare to quantify thelevels of labor productivity in rice agriculture in South-East Asia and JapanThe differences in labor productivity across East Asia are explained insection V

For lack of space several factors that influenced long-term changes inrice production in the countries of South-East Asia cannot be discussed heresuch as the fact that rice and non-rice food crops were substitutes in productionand consumption land tenure access to capital postwar government marketinterventions and the organization of the rice trade2 For the sake of the argu-ment the present article focuses on the key factor underlying labor productivityand comparative advantage in rice production production technology

2 See Wickezer and Bennett (1941) Barker and Herdt (1985)

PRODUCTIVITY AND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN RICE AGRICULTURE 347

Figure 1 World rice exports 1860ndash1999 (cumulative millions tons of rice 10-yearaverages

Sources World production and trade 1920ndash39 Wickezer and Bennett (1941) 1940ndash49 The WorldRice Economy in Figures (1909ndash1963) (Rome FAO 1965) 15 and 42 1950ndash99 FAO Pro-duction Yearbook FAO Trade Yearbook and FAOSTAT database (httpfaostatfaoorg)Additional sources Burma Grant (1939) Cotton (1874) Siok-Hwa (1968) Win (1991)Thailand Manarungsan (1989) Wilson (1993) Indochina Bulletin Eacuteconomique delrsquoIndochine (1925) Annuaire Statistique drsquoIndochine (various years)

II South-East Asia in the World Rice Economy

Table 1 shows that around 20 percent of world rice production originatedin South-East Asia during 1920ndash90 but that the region dominated the worldmarket up to World War II with 80ndash90 percent of world rice exports Intraregionalrice trade took up to 23 percent of South-East Asiarsquos rice exports during theinterwar years Intraregional rice trade was less important for Burma Thailandand Indochina together than extraregional trade Until World War II mostexported rice went to other parts of Asia India China Hong Kong and Japan inparticular

Figure 1 shows the continuous increase of rice exports from South-EastAsia Thailand Indochina and especially Burma dominated the global ricemarket before World War II After the war exports from Burma and Indochinadeclined Thailand maintained its exports but did not increase its share in theworld market until the late 1970s Until then China the USA and several

ASIA

N E

CO

NO

MIC

JOU

RN

AL

348Table 1 Production and trade of rice in the world and South-East Asia 1920ndash1999 (five-year averages)

World South-East Asia Share of South-East IntratradeAsia in world () as of Total

South-East AsianProduction Export Share Production Export Intratradedagger Production Trade rice export

(million tons rice) (million tons rice)(1) (2) (21) (3) (4) (5) (31) (42) (54)

1920ndash24 822Dagger 49sect 60 171 43 07 208 877 1661925ndash29 839Dagger 61sect 73 187 52 12 222 842 2301930ndash34 872Dagger 65sect 75 190 50 09 218 769 1881935ndash39 887Dagger 71sect 80 199 53 09 224 745 1741940ndash44 881 27 31 201 20 02 229 745 1231945ndash49 915 29 32 169 19 09 185 655 4751950ndash54 1164 46 40 227 32 10 195 679 3031955ndash59 1417 64 45 260 39 11 184 607 2961960ndash64 1523 77 50 302 37 18 198 481 4871965ndash69 1790 91 51 341 24 17 190 264 7071970ndash74 2091 98 47 398 19 27 190 195 1393para1975ndash79 2385 110 46 467 26 25 196 238 9471980ndash84 2784 143 51 597 45 16 214 312 3641985ndash89 3118 149 48 686 63 09 220 415 1491990ndash94 3423 177 52 769 74 08 225 416 1031995ndash99 3752 268 71 1191 105 41 318 392 387

Notes dagger Net imports of Malaysia Singapore Indonesia and the Philippines plus after 1965 net imports of the countries of Indochina Dagger Only Burma IndochinaThailand Korea Taiwan Japan India Malaya Sri Lanka Java the Philippines and China These countries produced about 98 percent of world output in195051 sect Exports of Burma Indochina Thailand Korea and Taiwan only Other main rice exporting countries such as the USA Italy Spain and Brazilwould add 3ndash5 percent to total exports (Taylor and Taylor 1943) para More than 100 implies a net inflow of rice from outside the region in this caselargely from the USA to South Vietnam the Philippines and Indonesia following crop failures in Thailand in 1972 and 1974 Production in Chinaestimated assuming 100 kg paddy per capita and population interpolated from 430 million in 1913 to 547 million in 1950 all paddy data converted tomilled rice with 065 milling rate

Sources World production and trade 1920ndash39 Wickezer and Bennett (1941) 1940ndash49 The World Rice Economy in Figures (1909ndash1963) (Rome FAO 1965)15 and 42 1950ndash99 FAO Production Yearbook FAO Trade Yearbook and FAOSTAT database (httpfaostatfaoorg)


smaller producers such as Egypt Pakistan Australia and Italy took advantageof the expansion of the global demand for rice

Around 1860 the countries in mainland South-East Asia started a gradualexpansion of exports at the expense of traditional exporters in Asia such asBengal and Java (Coclanis 1993ab) The rapid increase of rice production inthese areas was facilitated by the opening up of vast areas for rice productionIn part this was an autonomous response to the increasing demand for rice out-side the region It was also facilitated by the extension of colonial rule to LowerBurma and to Cochinchina followed by government initiatives favoring thedevelopment of rice production3 The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 was nota turning point in the development of the rice trade Rice exports from South-East Asia were mainly directed to South and East Asia while the shipping ofrice with sailing ships via the Cape to Europe and the Americas continued untilabout 1900 because it was cheaper despite the longer journey (Hlaing 1964Manarungsan 1989) More relevant was the sustained decline in ocean freightrates during the 19th century due to the technological improvements in thedesign and construction process of sailing ships and the gradual change to steelsteamships with increased cargo capacity (North 1958 Knick Harley 1988)

South-East Asiarsquos share in the world rice trade declined after the 1920s inpart because Japan increased rice imports from its colonies Korea and TaiwanAnother explanation is that international cereal markets had become interlinkedin the 19th century4 Table 2 shows that wheat dominated the global cerealmarket in the 20th century Several wheat-producing countries introduced meas-ures to protect their farmers from the impact of the global slump after 1929(Taylor and Taylor 1943) International demand for wheat and wheat pricesdecreased Cheap wheat replaced rice on cereal markets outside Asia In addi-tion rice-importing countries such as Malaya Indonesia and the Philippinesintroduced measures to support and protect their rice farmers causing a slightfall in intra-South-East Asian rice trade in the 1930s

The gradual fall of South-East Asiarsquos share in world exports continued afterWorld War II up until the late 1970s when Thailand started a rapid expansion ofits exports Figure 1 shows that instead of replacing countries that had enteredthe world market as exporters after World War II Thailand has set the pace ofthe expansion of the world market at large since the late 1970s and was joinedby Vietnam in the 1990s

Table 1 shows that the intra-South-East Asian rice trade increased signifi-cantly during 1950ndash75 Demand for imported rice even increased to the extentthat rice had to be imported from outside the region following crop failures in

3 This followed the British annexation of Lower Burma in 1852 and the opening up of Rangoonfor trade the signing of the Bowring Treaty between the United Kingdom and Thailand in 1855 theFrench capture of Saigon in 1859 and the annexation of Cochinchina in 1862 The authorities in thethree river deltas removed trade restrictions and took measures to enhance rice production For acomparison see Owen (1971) and Siamwalla (1972)4 See Latham and Neal (1983) and Latham (1986a) for an analysis of these linkages up to 1914


Thailand in the early 1970s The subsequent increase in intra-South-East Asianrice trade was largely due to the expansion of rice imports by Indonesia until themid-1980s when the country achieved self-sufficiency

The reasons for the structural decline of South-East Asiarsquos share in world riceexports during the period 1930ndash80 despite the postwar expansion of the worldmarket are complex Heavy taxation of rice exports decreased the domesticprofitability of rice production especially in Burma and Thailand In additionworld rice production increased at a lower rate than wheat production Henceon a world scale consumers preferred wheat-based food products to rice Thedifference in growth rates may also imply that technological development incereal agriculture was skewed towards wheat production5 The following dis-cussion will indicate that technological change in the main rice exporting coun-tries of South-East Asia was indeed slow

After World War II the international rice market became very thin Onlyaround 4 percent of production reached the international market after the wardown from 8 percent during the interwar years This caused a low price elastic-ity of world demand for rice implying that the more the main exporters wouldhave wanted to export the lower the international price of rice would have been(Barker and Herdt 1985) Rice importing countries adopted policies to enhancerice production importing rice only to balance deficits caused by adverse naturalconditions Therefore there was a high potential supply but a low and volatileinternational demand These factors contributed to a high degree of price vari-ability in the rice market and an increasingly lower degree of market integration

Table 2 World cereal exports 1909ndash2000

190913 192428 193438 195961 196971 197981 198991 19992001

Total (million tons annual averages)Wheat 183 240 170 340 547 952 1119 1272Maize 69 93 109 116 291 784 719 800Rice 52 66 69 61 77 128 136 252Total 304 399 349 517 915 1864 1974 2323

Shares (percentages)Wheat 60 60 49 66 60 51 57 55Maize 23 23 31 22 32 42 36 34Rice 17 17 20 12 8 7 7 11

Note Wheat includes wheat equivalent of flourSources Taylor and Taylor 1943 and FAO Trade Yearbook and FAOSTAT database (http

faostatfaoorg)

5 The global yield of paddy per hectare increased 22 percent during 195961ndash197981 comparedto an increase of 41 percent of wheat yields However in the 1980s rice producers gained groundwith an increase of paddy yields of 34 percent during 197981ndash198890 compared to 29 percent ofwheat yields Calculated from FAO Production Yearbook


(Cha 2000) Small changes in the balance between production and consumptionin individual countries especially in large countries such as Indonesia and Chinatranslated into relatively big changes in supply or demand in the rice marketThis differed from international markets for other cereals especially wheat andmaize These commodities were traded in much larger quantities than rice andtherefore determined the underlying international price trends for cereals

An increasing part of the world cereal market became dominated by multi-lateral trade agreements in which rice and wheat were traded under conditionsfavorable to the parties involved The rice exporting countries of South-EastAsia were generally not involved in such arrangements although several riceimporting countries in the region received rice from the USA under favorableconditions A related factor is the policies of agricultural protection in the USAand the European Community which resulted in overproduction and occasionalsales of considerable amounts of surplus cereals particularly wheat Such salesdepressed the general real price of cereals on the remaining free part of theinternational market and reduced the price of wheat relative to rice (Tyers andAnderson 1992) Consequently rice-importing countries increasingly replacedwheat for rice

III Technological Paradigms in Rice Production

Why did mainland South-East Asia dominate the world rice market up to WorldWar II outdoing other major rice producers such as China Japan and the USADuring the interwar years the world rice market was relatively free from govern-ment intervention and was significantly integrated particularly in Asia (Cha2000) Therefore explanations have to be found on the supply side of the mar-ket production and marketing of rice Moreover it has to be acknowledged thatmost rice was exported to other rice-producing countries in Asia which suggeststhat explanations will have to be found in the comparative advantages that riceproducers in mainland South-East Asia may have had

Rice was grown throughout Asia in many different ways In the past the riceplant only dominated the swampy lowland areas of mainland Asia but fromthere it gradually spread reaching the eastern part of the Malay archipelagoafter 1500 and replacing roots and tubers as the main staple foods Althoughlargely grown in swamp-like conditions rice became cultivated under a widerange of climatic and geographical conditions with a variety of different produc-tion techniques It is possible to suggest that the choice of cultivation practicescorrelated with population density but climate and geography were also import-ant variables

It is often argued that population growth and greater population density deter-mined the choice of rice cultivation techniques This has led to the perceptionthat there is a mandatory sequence of technological paradigms in agriculturaldevelopment of rice-producing societies in which the prevailing productiontechnique at a certain moment is indicative of population density and the phase


of economic development The ranking of production techniques is often inorder of intensity of land use and runs as follows6 In underdeveloped areas withlow population densities random gathering of wild rice gradually gives way toshifting cultivation in a forest-fallow system In this swidden system trees arefelled and burned and seeds are planted in the unploughed land using a dibblestick After the harvest the area is left to recuperate The next phase in thesequence is a grass-fallow system of mixed agriculture The fallow period be-comes shorter livestock is herded on the harvested fields and their droppingshelp the field to recover during the fallow period A subsequent phase involvesthe sedentary cultivation of annually ploughed fields with a broadcasting tech-nique In the case of rice the process of intensified land use has been refinedfurther In its most elaborated form rice seedlings are transplanted from nurser-ies onto intensively prepared irrigated fields Permanent irrigation structuresenable multiple cropping The intensive use of current inputs (fertilizer in par-ticular) on selected high-yielding and fertilizer-responsive rice varieties allowhigh crop yields These are the main characteristics of the Green Revolution inrice agriculture which spread throughout South-East and East Asia during thepast 30 years

The above sequence of technological paradigms is often accepted as anintuitive model of agricultural development in which population growth andthe demand for labor outside agriculture (ie the changing opportunity cost ofagricultural labor) are easily identified as the main forces driving this processBut it is questionable whether the sequence and therefore the dominant riceproduction technique in a particular region can be taken as a proxy for the stageof economic development The main problem is that the sequence is at bestadequate to analyze change in subsistence-based rice-producing societies thatmaintain superficial contacts with the outside world Populations in most of thesettled areas in the South-East and East Asian region have always been in contactwith each other Therefore agricultural development in one country has to beanalyzed in the light of agricultural changes elsewhere because of the comparat-ive advantage that some regions may have had over others in rice production

IV Comparative Advantage and Labor Productivity in Rice Agriculture

What constituted that comparative advantage The production technique chosenand the combination of factor inputs it required are likely to have depended onrelative factor prices given the range of determinants such as water supply soilconditions climate and rice varieties preferred by producers and consumers Forthe sake of the argument it is possible to disregard the ecological differences

6 The different production techniques in rice agriculture have been described in much greaterdetail in Terra (1958) Angladette (1966 223ndash45) Hanks (1972 25ndash43) Barker and Herdt (198527ndash32) and Tanaka (1991) The model of agricultural intensification is not specific to rice societiesfor example Boserup (1965) and Clark and Haswell (1967)


Figure 2 Schematic illustration of growth paths in rice production in asia with regard toproductivity change

Note The three variables in this chart are interrelated because labor productivity (OL) = landproductivity (OA) times land-labor ratio (AL)

between the rice-producing areas in South-East Asia because the main con-ditions that determine rice cultivation such as water supply and soil conditionscan be manipulated For instance water supply can be regulated with theconstruction of dams canals and dykes Water shortage can be overcome withirrigation from artesian wells or reservoirs Soil fertility can be augmented withfertilizers However all manipulations require the commitment of greater amountsof labor and capital It is therefore a trade-off between higher crop yields anda greater commitment of productive resources to rice production

The process of technological change in rice production can be assessedwith the extended Ishikawa-curve shown in Figure 2 The original Ishikawa-curve only described the solid line in the chart7 The curve shows the paths of

7 Ishikawarsquos (1980 and 1981) original curve mirrored Figure 2 because it had labor input perhectare (the inverse of the area of land worked per day) along the X-axis Figure 2 is a new


technological change societies may follow if they seek to increase totalfactor productivity (TFP) in rice agriculture or rice production with a givencombination of production factors (labor land and capital) An importantreason for seeking to increase TFP (labor productivity in particular) is intrinsicto the process of economic development (Timmer 1988) The demand for non-agricultural goods and services rises with economic growth Producers of suchgoods and services will compete with agricultural producers for productiveresources Workers drop out of agriculture but only if they are assured thatthey can purchase food at attractive prices If food is not imported in greateramounts workers remaining in agriculture will have to maintain or increaseagricultural production to produce the food surplus for the non-agriculturalworkers in exchange for non-agricultural goods and services Increasing laborproductivity or TFP in agriculture is indeed a major prerequisite for economicgrowth

In Ishikawarsquos interpretation of agricultural development in rice-producingsocieties the path of advancement leads from a level of subsistence productionupwards to higher crop yields (Y-axis) first with labor-absorbing techniques(X-axis) but gradually with techniques which allow more workers to drop out ofagriculture and farmers to adopt labor-replacing techniques During this processsocieties cut across the isometric lines indicating labor productivity whichimplies that rice production per unit of labor input is steadily increasing

Ishikawa (1981) compared the historical evidence on labor input and yields inrice production in Japan and Taiwan with similar evidence from China Indiaand the Philippines in the 1950s and 1960s and concluded lsquo countries withthe smaller per hectare labor input and per hectare output are found to be thecountries where the problems of employment and rural poverty are the mostacutersquo Ishikawa presupposed that all developing countries have an unused laborsurplus which can be tapped by enhancing land productivity in rice production8

He concentrated his argument on the technological reasons why labor input waslow in India and the Philippines and concluded that rice-producing societiesnecessarily follow a path of technological change in rice production similar tothat of Japan and Taiwan during the process of economic development Thisparagon dictates that a country will be in a position to mobilize an agriculturalsurplus in order to finance investment in the non-agricultural sectors and that

interpretation of the curve because it extends it with the dotted line But it is not a new interpretationof the process of agricultural development in general The lsquoextended Ishikawa-curversquo is roughly thesame as the interpretation of international differences in agricultural development presented byHayami and Ruttan (1985) The two differences are (i) we refer to rice only where Hayami andRuttan referred to total agricultural output and (ii) we consider the flow of total labor input in riceagriculture where Hayami and Ruttan used the available stock of male employment in agricultureHayami and Ruttan (1985) presented a specific lsquoAsian pathrsquo of agricultural development Howevertheir sample of countries is biased towards the East Asian experience and excludes Burma andThailand for instance which do not conform to this lsquoAsian pathrsquo8 Ishikawa (1967) elaborated on the analytical concept of lsquosurplus laborrsquo of Lewis (1954)


higher productivity eventually allows workers to drop out of agriculture to takeup full-time jobs in non-agricultural sectors9

Ishikawarsquos findings helped to rationalize the commitment of governments ofdeveloping countries in Asia since the 1960s to public investment in irrigationfacilities and the spread of high-input labor-absorbing technologies in riceagriculture in what is generally known as the Green Revolution Governmentsin all countries in South-East Asia engaged resources in the development of riceagriculture along the lines of the Japanese paragon Some were more committedthan others which may explain the different rates of lsquosuccessrsquo of the GreenRevolution in South-East Asia (Hayami 1988) However evidence on the actualpaths of productivity change in rice agriculture shows that the countries of South-East Asia despite rapid economic growth in recent decades did not exactlyfollow the Japanese paragon

The evidence is contained in Table 3 It is necessarily patchy because apartfrom Japan estimates of labor input in rice agriculture in Asia are rare Still thetable illustrates the key differences between the main rice-producing areas ofSouth-East Asia and Japan in terms of average yields and labor productivity

9 Elsewhere Ishikawa (1967) concluded lsquoThus the experience of Taiwan and Korea togetherwith that of Japan seems to indicate that the technological pattern of productivity increase in Asianagriculture is broadly the samersquo With some disclaimers the Japanese case has been presented byseveral authors such as Hayami and Ruttan (1985) as a path to economic development for the otherrice-producing Asian countries to follow

Table 3 Productivity in East-Asian rice agriculture 1870ndash1980s (annual averages)

Year Labor input Gross rice Area per Rice perper hectare yield day worked day worked

(days) (tonha) (m2day) (kg)

Japan18771901 283 193 35 68190817 287 243 35 85192430 253 261 40 103193143 254 269 39 106195157 237 296 42 125195863 206 350 49 170196470 169 379 59 224197180 106 413 95 391198190 68 446 147 653

Java187580 232 122 43 53192330 210 111 48 53195561 189 117 53 62196869 166 139 60 84197780 152 204 66 134198792 116 293 86 252


Table 3 (continued)



Thailand190609 63 097 158 154193034 50 088 202 178195369 84 084 119 100197079 87 106 114 121198088 76 119 132 157

TonkinNorth Vietnam1930s 213 135 47 631950 215 149 47 69

CochinchinaSouth Vietnam1930s 65 087 154 1341950 73 133 137 1821960s 69 126 145 1821990 89 218 112 245

Cambodia1899 67 091 149 1361930s 79 065 127 821950s 66 074 151 112198889 148 086 68 58

Philippines195061 66 076 150 114196574 76 097 132 127197582 109 128 92 118198590 81 169 124 210

Burma1932 57 093 175 163197781 79 141 127 180

West Malaysia (Malaya)191928 147 083 68 56194850 97 091 103 93196269 131 162 76 123197383 169 193 59 114

Notes The basic data on labor input in rice agriculture are obtained from a wide range of localsurveys Unless specified differently in the source labor input measured in hours was con-verted on the assumption that one workday equals eight hours It is assumed that the averageof several surveys for a particular period is representative for the entire area Rice yields areaverages for the whole country or region generally obtained from national sources con-verted to rice equivalents 1 tonha equals 01 kgm2

Sources See Appendix 1


Firstly prewar Java and Tonkin were in similar positions as pre-1900 JapanSecondly Burma in the 1930s Thailand during the first half of the 20th centuryand since the late 1970s South Vietnam during the 1930s and 1950s Cambodiaduring the first half of the 20th century and the Philippines moved in directionswhich were different from Japan in the past10 Thirdly these countries managedto produce significantly more rice per day worked than Japan until the 1960s Javauntil the 1970s North Vietnam in the 1930s and prewar West Malaysia Outputwas 15ndash17 kg of rice per day worked in prewar mainland South-East Asia com-pared to only 5ndash7 kg in prewar Java Tonkin and Malaya and pre-1900 Japan

V Explaining Differences in Labor Productivity

How could labor productivity in rice production in mainland South-East Asia beso much higher than in other parts of South-East Asia and Japan before WorldWar II One possible explanation is that the higher opportunity cost of laborand therefore production costs in rice agriculture in mainland South-East Asianecessitated a higher level of labor productivity Although evidence is patchyTable 4 indicates that it is unlikely that the cost of labor and therefore theproduction costs of rice were three times higher in mainland South-East Asiathan in Java Tonkin and Malaya11 The conclusion has to be that rice producersin one area Java for example had to put a much greater effort into the produc-tion of the same quantity of rice as farmers in another area for example BurmaAs explained below the population densities in mainland South-East Asia wererelatively low which makes it unlikely that the cost of land was higher inmainland South-East Asia while the use of current inputs in rice agriculturewere limited in both mainland and island South-East Asia Clearly rice farmersin Burma Thailand and Southern Indochina enjoyed a significant comparativeadvantage over their colleagues elsewhere

Why was labor productivity so much higher in mainland South-East Asiawhen low crop yields would suggest that production techniques were under-developed It has to be acknowledged that Ishikawarsquos argument implicitly takesland productivity as a proxy for TFP and underexposes a much more importantfactor in the process of economic development labor productivity12 This omission

10 Since the 1950s the direction of the Philippines was a net result of a simultaneous expansion ofrice farming in under-populated frontier regions such as Mindanao and the development of input-intensive rice cultivation in older rice-producing areas such as Luzon James (1978) assesses theimplications of the simultaneous process for the analysis of productivity change in rice agriculture11 Wage rates of course reflect the marginal productivity of labor which cannot be strictlycompared with average production per day But for the sake of the argument it is assumed here thatboth are comparable12 Ishikawa (1967) did not present estimates of labor productivity although they are implicit inhis data They show for instance that gross rice output per day worked in a country with a low laborinput as the Philippines was higher in the 1960s and 1970s than Japan in the 1950s and that net riceoutput per day worked in Bengal in 195657 was higher than net labor productivity in Japan in 1950


Table 4 Rural wages for male unskilled labor in South-East Asia and Japan 1890ndash1980($USday)

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980

Burma 033a 039b 052 043 027Thailand 038c 020d 024 032 034e 048f 059g 183h

Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i

South Vietnam 009j 015k 013l 019 067 045 052Java 011 011 012 018 017 025 005 037 133Other Islands 028m 030 037 049 008 060 200Philippines 041n 043o 065 075 061 133Japan 014 019 026 072 033 066 167 756 2347

Notes a 1929 1931 b 1953 c 1889ndash90 d 1899 1902 Bangkok e Bangkok f 1965 g 19701972 h 1981 i 1979 j 1898 k 1911 l 1920ndash22 m 1911ndash14 n 1925 o 1931 Wherepossible five-year averages were used of which the first year is given Domestic pricesconverted to US dollars with current exchange rates and black market rates approximatingthe purchasing power of currencies

Sources Data from a wide range of sources was used to compile this table The postwar data aregenerally from ILO Yearbook ECAFE Bulletin FAO Production Yearbook and Palacpac(1991) The most important additional sources are Malaysia Thoburn (1977) ThailandFeeny (1982) Indochina Murray (1980) Bulletin Eacuteconomique de lrsquoIndochine and AnnuaireStatistique de lrsquoIndochine (1932ndash41) Indonesia Van der Eng (1996) Philippines StatisticalHandbook of the Philippines and Japan Umemura (1967) Exchange rates from Van derEng (1993)

is important to countries with relatively low population densities which asTable 5 illustrates the main rice exporting countries in South-East Asia wereIshikawarsquos hypothesis prompts the question Why would farmers in countrieswith relatively high labor productivity in low-input rice production adopt tech-nologies which would have compelled them to work their rice fields harderwhen the lsquolaw of diminishing returnsrsquo would inevitably have confronted themwith a declining marginal productivity of labor

A flaw in Ishikawarsquos argument is the assumption that there was a laborsurplus in all rice-producing societies in South-East Asia which had to be mobi-lized with labor-absorbing technological change as part of a strategy to furthereconomic development Given the substantial prewar inflow of migrants fromIndia and China into Lower Burma Malaya Thailand and also Cochinchina(Latham 1986b) it is difficult to regard these areas as being troubled by surpluslabor That may at best have been the case during the off-season But duringthe main rice season there were considerable labor shortages when by and largefarm households required all available labor to cultivate and harvest as muchland as they could possibly handle This situation is different from the moredensely populated areas such as Japan where not maximization of cultivableland but maximization of yields was paramount

Therefore depending on relative factor endowments there are actually dif-ferent paths leading to higher labor productivity in rice agriculture as Figure 2


Table 5 Population densities in Japan and South-East Asia 1850ndash1990

1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990

People per hectare of cultivated arable land (nutritional density)Japan 76 84 101 142 201 236Burma 25a 19 31 31 30 42Thailand 52b 39 29 25 27Laos 37c 43 48Cambodia 32e 19c 35 23CochinchinaSouth Vietnam 23f 22 52g 65h 98d

TonkinNorth Vietnam 53i 51j 85h

MalayaMalaysia 19k 21c 26 26Philippines 58f 32l 51 62 76Indonesia Java 49m 50 48 60 95 123Indonesia Other Islands 34m 28 23 28 33 24

People per harvested hectare of riceJapan 132 156 191 276 405 596Burma 59 48 30 30 50 58 88Thailand 56 65f 40 36 49 54Laos 52l 27g 50 67Cambodia 48 36 25 64 46CochinchinaSouth Vietnam 36p 25 19 62 75 90TonkinNorth Vietnam 54 64n 72o 61 111 133MalayaMalaysia 115b 132 158 158 262Philippines 67 90 119 185Indonesia Java 110m 111 120 143 170 191Indonesia Other Islands 118 125 142

Notes a 1901 b 1911 c 1961 d Vietnam total e 1930 f 1902 g 1951 h 1973 i 1939 j 1955k 1930 l 1926 m 1880 n 1924 o 1940 p 1870

Sources Data from various statistical sources from individual listed countries was used to compilethis table This data was augmented after World War II with data from ECAFE BulletinFAO Production Yearbook FAOSTAT database (httpfaostatfaoorg) and Palacpac (1991)

indicates From a low level of land and labor productivity one possible path leadsupwards as Ishikawa conceived Another possible path leads to the right of thechart cutting across the isometric lines indicating labor productivity on the basisof labor-saving production technology It may be obvious that both paths com-mand different production technologies and that producers following differentdirections require different innovations to enhance labor productivity In shorttechnological change akin to Japan in the past cannot have been a necessaryprerequisite for the development of rice production in all Asian countries

By focusing on the land-saving technological possibilities of enhancing landproductivity Ishikawa and other proponents of the East Asian path of agriculturaldevelopment may have neglected that the choice of a rice production techniqueis likely to have been determined by the relative costs of the main productionfactors in particular labor and land As explained above ecological conditions can


be manipulated but such operations demand the commitment of more resourcessuch as fertilizer fixed capital or labor The adoption of labor-absorbing tech-nologies depends on whether farm households consider it worthwhile to investtime and effort in activities which enhance labor input in rice production suchas the construction and maintenance of irrigation facilities or the collection anddispersion of organic manure The direction of technological change thereforedepends on the opportunity cost of available labor and land13 Low crop yields asa result of extensive production techniques can only pose a problem to a devel-oping society if labor productivity is low as well This situation implies that percapita rice production is low and rice supply perilous However Table 3 shows thatareas with low crop yields mostly had high labor productivity in prewar yearsand therefore the domestic rice supply is unlikely to have been jeopardized

The most conspicuous difference between the main rice exporting areas inmainland South-East Asia and areas such as Japan Java and Tonkin is popula-tion density (Zelinsky 1950) The top section of Table 5 shows that only Javaafter 1950 and more recently the Philippines reached density levels comparableto Japan in 1875 Concerning rice production the bottom part of the table showsthat only Java after 1925 North Vietnam after 1950 and the Philippines after1975 reached density levels comparable to Japan at the time of the Meiji resto-ration The implication is that attempts to further rice yields in order to maintainper capita production became relevant at a much later date than in Japan Aninterpretation of the high densities shown in the bottom half of Table 5 for theOther Islands of Indonesia and Malaya should take into account that relativelylarge sections of the rural population in these areas were not engaged in riceproduction Revenues from export crop production enabled these farmers topurchase imported rice

Table 5 shows that the number of people per hectare of rice in Burma Thai-land Cambodia and Cochinchina declined up until 1950 Given that productionincreased continuously in these countries it seems likely that farmers in theseareas expanded production by enlarging their farms where possible rather thanincreasing crop yields In fact shifting the land frontier may well have led to afall in average rice yields because of the use of broadcasting techniques andthe expansion to marginal lands14 However lower yields do not mean that a

13 The relevance of labor productivity may explain why in some parts of South-East Asia riceproduction in labor extensive shifting cultivation patterns emerged after labor intensive wet riceagriculture had been developed (Hill 1977 Dao 1985 Tanaka 1991)14 Ramsson (1977) elaborated this thesis for Thailand and Sansom (1970) for Cochinchina Ishikawa(1967) did not ignore the presence of a land frontier However he suggested that in most casesreclamation of reserves of waste land only happened in recent years under government-sponsoredcolonisation schemes and with state farms (p 66) and therefore with subsidies Secondly on thebasis of an example from China he assumed that the cost of clearing and cultivating wastelandmay be higher than the conversion of land (pp 67ndash8) into irrigated fields a point later elaborated byHayami and Kikuchi (1978ab) for the Philippines However Ishikawarsquos conclusions were not basedon a cost-benefit analysis


comparative advantage in rice production was lost because the crucial factor insuch cases is labor productivity Table 6 summarizes the main sources of changesin rice production and indeed confirms that up until 1950 the expansion ofharvested areas explains most of the production increases in South-East AsiaThis was in contrast to Japan where up until 1970 increases in yields explainmost of the production gains

The results in Table 3 imply that in order to capture income opportunities inrice production farmers in the rice exporting countries of South-East Asiasuccessfully increased labor productivity by using production techniques differentfrom those in Japan15 Instead of the usual hectare of rice for household con-sumption a rural family in mainland South-East Asia produced a rice surplusby cultivating two to three hectares In Japan farmers increased surplus riceproduction after 1875 by increasing rice yields and in Java farmers increasedharvested area through irrigation facilities which enhanced multiple croppingHowever in mainland South-East Asia farmers sought to use labor-savingtechniques Animal traction was used throughout Asia for land preparation butthe ratio of work animals and arable land was significantly higher in mainlandSouth-East Asia compared to Japan and Java In Japan farmers largely resortedto manual labor to prepare their land with hoes or spades They also cultivatedseedlings on seedbeds for transplanting whereas in mainland South-East Asiafarmers broadcasted seed onto the fields In Japan farmers would fertilize theirfields with human waste compost or even mud from fertile areas and later withimported fertilizers Fertilizing fields was practically unheard of in mainlandSouth-East Asia For those reasons labor input per hectare in rice agriculturediffered significantly throughout Asia

The comparative advantage of rice farmers in mainland South-East Asia lay inthe fact that they could expand their farms and continue rice production withtraditional low-input labor-extensive techniques Under the free-market condi-tions prevailing in South-East Asia until the 1930s rice could only be producedwith a noteworthy profit on such farms The reason is that rice was a low value-added product Almost all farmers in South-East and East Asia could producerice if they considered it to be worthwhile However given that land was relat-ively scarce farmers in areas such as Java most likely preferred to use landand labor which was not required for the production of rice for subsistencefor the production of other crops In Java other food crops and a range oflabor-intensive cash crops indeed yielded higher net financial returns per hourworked and per hectare than rice (Van der Eng 1996) Labor was relativelyscarce in the other rice-importing areas in South-East Asia and farm householdsmost likely preferred to use any surplus labor for the production of cash cropswith high net returns to labor with labor extensive techniques Indeed farmers inthe Other Islands of Indonesia produced a range of crops such as rubber copra

15 This paragraph relies on Van der Eng (unpublished data 2003)


Table 6 Growth of rice production in South-East Asia and Japan 1875ndash1990

1875ndash1900 1900ndash25 1925ndash50 1950ndash70 1970ndash90

BurmaAnnual Av Growth () 30 10 minus10 18 33

Harvested Area 131 54 49 4Yield minus28 45 49 96

Thailand (1902ndash25)Annual Av Growth () 16 21 18 33 20

Harvested Area 157 155 41 45Yield minus63 minus55 59 55

MalayaMalaysia (1911ndash25)Annual Av Growth () 02 27 45 07

Harvested Area 266 33 54 minus36Yield minus165 67 45 138

Java (1880ndash1900)Annual Av Growth () 04 10 07 29 40

Harvested Area 161 104 75 30 23Yield minus61 minus4 24 69 76

Other Islands Indonesia (1880ndash1900)Annual Av Growth () 07 15 11 33 45

Harvested Area 70 38Yield 29 60

Indochina (Total)Annual Av Growth () 21 19 07 32 28


CochinchinaAnnual Av Growth () 55 09 minus16 51

Harvested Area 101 212 95 43Yield 0 minus114 4 55

Philippines (1908ndash25)Annual Av Growth () 20 14 28 35

Harvested Area 84 97 48 7Yield 16 3 51 93

JapanAnnual Av Growth () 10 12 01 13 minus08

Harvested Area 47 37 minus139 minus39 151Yield 53 62 240 140 minus51

Notes In some cases total production was estimated with per capita rice supply and exports Thegrowth rates were calculated from five-year averages of which the first year is given Contri-butions of changes in harvested area and crop yields are calculated with the equationg(O) = g(HA) + g(OHA) + [g(HA) times g(OHA)] in which g is the compounded growth rateO is production and HA is harvested area The last term in the equation is tangential to zero



coffee pepper and cloves Most smallholders in Malaya produced rubber16

In the Philippines many produced hemp copra and sugar cane A commoncharacteristic is that most farm households producing cash crops did not neglectthe production of food crops17 They continued to produce rice for house-hold consumption Indonesia Malaya and the Philippines largely importedrice to feed the urban and non-agricultural population and those working onplantations

Technological change in the densely populated areas of South-East Asia wasthus inhibited by low marginal returns in rice production under the free marketconditions prevailing until the 1930s This is in contrast to Japan where tech-nological change continued to enhance rice yields largely because farmers wereincreasingly shielded from free market conditions through tariffs on rice importsand through input subsidies (Saxon and Anderson 1982)

VI Conclusion

Supply-side factors appear to be paramount in explaining why the countriesof mainland South-East Asia dominated the prewar world rice market becausethey help to define the comparative advantage of these countries in rice pro-duction The advantage was that simple labor-extensive low-cost low-yieldproduction technology allowed farmers in mainland South-East Asia to achievelevels of labor productivity that were much higher than in the other moredensely populated rice-producing areas in South-East and East Asia

This conclusion has repercussions for recent interpretations of the historicaldelay in economic development in rice-producing Asian countries based on thesuggestion that most countries were late in developing irrigation facilities andadopting the seed-fertilizer technology that seemed to have blazed the trail ofdevelopment in Meiji Japan in the late 19th century On the whole such labor-absorbing technologies would not have been appropriate for the rice-exportingareas of mainland South-East Asia as long as the land frontier had not beenreached

16 For indications of the considerable profitability of rubber for example see Jack (1930) Bauer(1948) and Lim (1967) Other crops continued to be far more profitable than rice after World War IIdespite government policies to boost returns from rice to farmers See Black et al (1953) Huang(1971) Taylor (1981) Mamat (1984ndash58) and Kato (1991)17 In the case of rubber smallholders in the Other Islands of Indonesia see Smits (1928) Luytjesand Tergast (1930) Luytjes (1937) and Bauer (1948) Ding (1963) cites a study of Trengganu in1928 showing that rice production sufficed to feed the family and was still cheaper than buying ricebut was not remunerative enough for commercial production


Appendix I Sources For Labor Input Per Hectare in Table 3

Japan

1877ndash1943 Hara Y 1980 Labor absorption in Asian agriculture The Japaneseexperience In W Gooneratne (ed) Labor Absorption in Agriculture The EastAsian Experience (Bangkok ILO-ARTEP) 16ndash17 and Yamada S 1982 Laborabsorption in Japanese agriculture a statistical examination In S Ishikawa et alLabor Absorption and Growth in Agriculture China and Japan (BangkokILO-ARTEP) 46ndash48 1951ndash90 Kome Oyobi Migirui no Seisanki [Productioncosts of rice wheat and barley] (Tokyo Norin Teikei various years)

Java

The basic data for 187578 192430 196869 and 197780 are mentionedin Collier W L et al 1982 Labor absorption in Javanese rice cultivationIn W Gooneratne (ed) Labor Absorption in Rice-Based Agriculture CaseStudies from South-East Asia (Bangkok ILO-ESCAP) 47ndash53 Some werecorrected for discrepancies with the original sources The following wereadded 187580 Sollewijn Gelpke J H F 1885 Gegevens voor een NieuweLandrenteregeling Eindresumeacute der Onderzoekingen Bevolen bij Gouvts Besluitvan 23 Oct 1879 No3 (Batavia Landsdrukkerij) 50ndash51 192330 ScheltemaA M P A 1923 De ontleding van het inlandsch landbouwbedrijf Mededeel-ing van de Afdeeling Landbouw van het Departement van Landbouw Nijverheiden Handel No6 (Bogor Archipel) De Vries E 1931 Landbouw en Welvaartin het Regentschap Pasoeroean Bijdrage tot de Kennis van de Sociale Economievan Java (Wageningen Veenman) 234ndash36 Vink G J et al 193132 Ontledingvan de rijstcultuur in het gehucht Kenep (Residentie Soerabaja) Landbouw 7407ndash38 195861 Vademekum Tjetakan Kedua (Jakarta Djawatan PertanianRakjat 1956) 106 Beaja produksi padi pendengan th 196061 EkonomiPertanian No2 (Yogyakarta Fakultas Pertanian UGM 1962) 44ndash47 SlametI E 1965 Pokok Pokok Pembangunan Masjarakat Desa Sebuah PandanganAntropoligi Desa (Jakarta Bhratara) 184ndash89 Koentjaraningrat 1985 JavaneseCulture (Oxford Oxford UP) 167 197780 Hayami Y and M Kikuchi 1981Asian Village Economy at the Crossroads An Economic Approach to Institu-tional Change (Tokyo University of Tokyo Press) 183 and 202 198792Palacpac A 1991 World Rice Statistics 1990 (Los Banos IRRI) 278 CollierW L et al 1993 A New Approach to Rural Development in Java Twenty FiveYears of Village Studies (Jakarta PT Intersys Kelola Maju) 326ndash328

Thailand

190609 193034 Manarungsan S 1989 Economic Development of Thailand1850ndash1950 Response to the Challenge of the World Economy (Groningen


Faculty of Economics University of Groningen) 171 195369 Janlekha K O1955 A Study of the Economy of A Rice Growing Village in Central Thailand(PhD Thesis Cornell University Ithaca) 250 Kassebaum J C 1959 Report onEconomic Survey of Rice Farmers in Nakorn Pathom Province during 1955ndash1956 Rice Season (Bangkok Agricultural Research and Farm Survey SectionDepartment of Agriculture) 19 Bot C and W Gooneratne 1982 Labor absorp-tion in rice cultivation in Thailand In W Gooneratne (ed) Labor Absorption inRice-Based Agriculture Case Studies from South-East Asia (Bangkok ILO-ARTEP) 88 A Study on Agricultural Economics Conditions of Farmers in theProvinces of Roi-Et Mahasarakan and Kalasan in 1962ndash1963 (Bangkok Divi-sion of Agricultural Economics Ministry of Agriculture 1964) 19 OshimaH T 1973 Seasonality underemployment and growth in South-East Asiancountries In Changes in Food Habits in Relation to Increase of Productivity(Tokyo Asian Productivity Organization) 119 Manarungsan 1989 171 HanksL M 1972 Rice and Man Agricultural Ecology in South-East Asia (ChicagoAldine-Atherton) 167 Moerman M 1968 Agricultural Change and PeasantChoice in A Thai Village (Berkeley University of California Press) 206Puapanichya C and T Panayotou 1985 Output supply and input demand inrice and upland crop production the quest for higher yields in Thailand InT Panayotou (ed) Food Price Policy Analysis in Thailand (Bangkok AgriculturalDevelopment Council) 36 Barker R and R W Herdt 1985 The Rice Economyof Asia (Washington DC Resources for the Future) 29 197079 Bartsch W H1977 Employment and Technology Choice in Asian Agriculture (New YorkPraeger) 30 Puapanichya and Panayotou 1985 36 Barker and Herdt 1985 127David C and R Barker 1982 Labor demand in the Philippine rice sector InW Gooneratne (ed) Labor Absorption in Rice-Based Agriculture Case Studiesfrom South-East Asia (Bangkok ILO-ARTEP) 123 Taylor DC 1981 TheEconomics of Malaysian Paddy Production and Irrigation (Bangkok Agricul-tural Development Council) 89 Bot and Gooneratne 1982 92 198088 ChulasaiL and V Surarerks 1982 Water Management and Employment in NorthernThai Irrigation Systems (Chiang Mai Faculty of Social Sciences Chiang MaiUniversity) 185 188 and 189 Phongpaichit P 1982 Employment Income andthe Mobilization of Local Resources in Three Thai Villages (Bangkok ILO-ARTEP) 52ndash53 Isvilanonda S and S Wattanutchariya 1994 Modern varietyadoption factor price differential and income distribution in Thailand InC David and K Otsuka (eds) Modern Rice Technology and Income Distribu-tion in Asia (Boulder Lynne Rienner) 207 Palacpac 1991 293

Tonkin

1930s Dumont R 1935 La Culture du Riz dans le Delta du Tonkin (ParisSocieacuteteacute drsquoEacuteditions Geacuteographiques Maritimes et Coloniales) 138 Henry Y M1932 Eacuteconomie Agricole de lrsquoIndochine (Hanoi Imprimerie drsquoExtrecircme Orient)282 Gourou P 1965 Les Paysans du Delta Tonkinois Eacutetude de Geacuteographie


Humaine (Paris Mouton) 387 Angladette A 1966 Le Riz (Paris Maisonneuveamp Larose) 748 1950 Coyaud Y 1950 Le riz Eacutetude botanique geacuteneacutetiquephysiologique agrologique et technologique appliqueacutee a lrsquoIndochine Archivesde lrsquoOffice Indochinois du Riz No10 (Saigon OIR) 263

CochinchinaSouth Vietnam

1930s Bernard P 1934 Le Problegraveme eacuteconomique indochinois (Paris NouvellesEacuteditions latines) 23ndash24 Henry 1932 307 Gourou P 1945 Land Utilization inFrench Indochina (Washington Institute of Pacific Relations) 260 Angladette1966 748 1950 Coyaud 1950 264 1960s Pham-Dinh-Ngoc and Than-Binh-Cu 1963 Estimation des couts de production du paddy au Viet-Nam BanqueNationale du Viecirctnam Bulletin Eacuteconomique 9 (4) pp 12ndash19 Sansom R B 1970The Economics of Insurgency in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam (CambridgeMIT Press) 141 1990 Palacpac 1991 272

Cambodia

1899 La culture du riz au Cambodge Revue Indochinoise 2 (1899) 387 1930sHenry 1932 324 Delvert J 1961 Le Paysan Cambodgien (Paris Mouton)348 1950s Delvert 1961 348 Tichit L 1981 LrsquoAgriculture au Cambodge(Paris Agence de Cooperation Culturelle et Technique) 108 198889 Palacpac1991 272

Philippines

195061 Angladette 1966 748 Jayasuriya S K and R T Shand 1986 Tech-nical change and labor absorption in Asian agriculture some emerging trendsWorld Development 14 421ndash22 Grist D H 1975 Rice (London LongmansGreen and Co) 511 196574 Hanks 1972 167 Jayasuriya and Shand 1986419 421 and 422 Barker R and E V Quintana 1968 Studies of returns andcosts for local and high-yielding rice varieties Philippine Economic Journal 7150 C David et al 1994 Technological change land reform and income distri-bution in the Philippines In C David and K Otsuka (eds) Modern Rice Tech-nology and Income Distribution in Asia (Boulder Lynne Rienner) 91 JohnsonS J et al 1968 Mechanization in rice production Philippine Economic Jour-nal 7 193 Bartsch 1977 21 David and Barker 1982 129 Barker and Herdt1985 127 197582 Barker and Herdt 1985 128 David and Barker 1982 129Jayasuriya and Shand 1986 418 421 and 422 David et al 1994 91 ShieldsD 1985 The impact of mechanization on agricultural production in selectedvillages of Nueva Ecija Journal of Philippine Development 12 pp 182ndash197198590 Gonzales L A 1987 Rice production and regional crop diversifica-tion in the Philippines Economic issues Philippine Review of Economics andBusiness 24 133 David et al 1994 91 and 93 Palacpac 1991 290


Burma

1932 Barker and Herdt 1985 29 197781 Jayasuriya and Shand 1986 418

MalaysiaWest Malaysia

191928 Grist D H 1922 Wet padi planting in Negri Sembilan Departmentof Agriculture Federated Malay States Bulletin No33 (Kuala Lumpur Depart-ment of Agriculture) 26 Jack H W 1923 Rice in Malaya Department ofAgriculture Federated Malay States Bulletin No35 (Kuala Lumpur Depart-ment of Agriculture) 46 Ding E T S H 1963 The rice industry in Malaya1920ndash1940 Singapore Studies on Borneo and Malaya No2 (Singapore MalayaPublishing House) 14 194850 Ashby H K 1949 Dry padi mechanical culti-vation experiments Kelantan season 1948ndash1949 Malayan Agricultural Journal32 177 Allen E F and D W M Haynes 1953 A review of investigationsinto the mechanical cultivation and harvesting of wet padi Malayan AgriculturalJournal 36 67 196269 Purcal J T 1971 Rice Economy A Case Study ofFour Villages in West Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur University of Malaya Press)18 Ho R 1967 Farmers of Central Malaya Department of Geography RSPacSPublication NoG4 (1967) (Canberra Australian National University) 59Narkswasdi U 1968 A Report to the Government of Malaysia of the RiceEconomy of West Malaysia (Rome FAO) 89 Hill R D 1982 Agriculture inthe Malaysian Region (Budapest Akadeacutemiai Kiadoacute) 129 Narkswasdi U andS Selvadurai 1967 Economic Survey of Padi Production in West Malaysia(Kuala Lumpur Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives) 87 131 140 143and 151 Huang Yukon 1971 The Economics of Paddy Production in Malay-sia An Economy in Transition (PhD thesis Princeton University Princeton) 4448 and 51 Bhati U N 1976 Some Social and Economic Aspects of the Intro-duction of New Varieties of Paddy in Malaysia A Village Case Study (GenevaUN Research Institute for Social Development) 88 197383 David and Barker1982 123 Fujimoto A 1976 An economic analysis of peasant rice farming inKelantan Malaysia South East Asian Studies 14 167ndash68 Fujimoto A 1983Income Sharing among Malay Peasants A Study of Land Tenure and RiceProduction (Singapore Singapore UP) 191 Taylor 1981 85 and 88 KalshovenG et al 1984 Paddy Farmers Irrigation and Agricultural Services in Malay-sia A Case Study in the Kemubu Scheme (Wageningen Agricultural Univer-sity) 37 and 42 Mamat S Bin 1984 Poverty Reduction in the Rice Sector inMalaysia A Study of Six Villages in the Muda Irrigation Scheme (PhD thesisUniversity of Wisconsin Madison) 154


ReferencesAngladette A 1966 Le Riz Maisonneuve amp Larose ParisAnnuaire Statistique de lrsquoIndochine various years Annuaire Statistique de lrsquoIndochine Imprimerie

drsquoExtrecircme-Orient HanoiBarker R and R W Herdt 1985 The Rice Economy of Asia Resources for the Future Washington

DCBauer P T 1948 The Rubber Industry A Study in Competition and Monopoly Longmans Green

amp Co LondonBulletin Eacuteconomique de lrsquoIndochine various years Bulletin Eacuteconomique de lrsquoIndochine Imprimerie

drsquoExtrecircme-Orient HanoiBlack J G 1953 Report of the Rice Production Committee Grenier Kuala LumpurBoserup E 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth The Economics of Agrarian Change

under Population Pressure Allen amp Unwin LondonBray F 1983 Patterns of evolution in rice-growing societies Journal of Peasant Studies 11

pp 3ndash33Bray F 1986 The Rice Economies Technology and Development in Asian Societies Basil Blackwell

OxfordCha M S 2000 Integration and segmentation in international markets for rice and wheat 1877ndash

1994 Korean Economic Review 16 pp 107ndash123Clark C and M Haswell 1967 The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture Macmillan

LondonCoclanis P A 1993a South-East Asiarsquos incorporation in the world rice market A revisionist view

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 24 pp 251ndash67Coclanis P A 1993b Distant thunder The creation of a world market in rice and the trans-

formations it wrought American Historial Review 98 pp 1050ndash1078Cotton H J S 1874 The rice trade of the world Calcutta Review 58 pp 272Dao T T 1985 Types of rice cultivation in Vietnam Vietnamese Studies 76 pp 42ndash57Ding E T S H 1963 The rice industry in Malaya 1920ndash1940 Singapore Studies on Borneo and

Malaya No2 Malaya Publishing House SingaporeEconomic Commission for Asia and the Far East various years Economic Bulletin for Asian and the

Far East Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East BangkokFeeny D 1982 The Political Economy of Productivity Thai Agricutural Development 1880ndash1975

University of British Columbia Press VancouverFAOSTAT 2004 FAO Statistical Database Available from URL httpfaostatfaoorgFood and Agriculture Organization 1965 The World Rice Economy in Figures (1909ndash1963) Food

and Agriculture Organization RomeFood and Agriculture Organization various years Production Yearbook Food and Agriculture

Organization RomeFood and Agriculture Organization various years Trade Yearbook Food and Agriculture Organiza-

tion RomeGrant J W 1939 The rice crop in Burma Its history cultivation marketing and improvement

Agricultural Survey No17 Department of Agriculture Rangoon pp 55Hanks L M 1972 Rice and Man Agricultural Ecology in South-East Asia Aldine-Atherton

ChicagoHayami Y 1988 Asian development A view from the paddy fields Asian Development Review 6

pp 50ndash63Hayami Y and M Kikuchi 1978a Investment inducements to public infrastructure Irrigation in

the Philippines Review of Economics and Statistics 60 pp 70ndash77Hayami Y and M Kikuchi 1978b New rice technology and national irrigation development

policy In Economic Consequences of the New Rice Technology (eds R Barker and Y Hayami)pp 315ndash32 IRRI Los Banos


Hayami Y and V W Ruttan 1985 Agricultural Development An International Perspective TheJohns Hopkins UP Baltimore

Hill R D 1977 Rice in Malaya A Study in Historical Geography Oxford UP Kuala LumpurHlaing A 1964 Trends of economic growth and income in Burma 1870ndash1940 Journal of the

Burma Research Society 47 pp 89ndash148Huang Y 1971 The Economics of Paddy Production in Malaysia An Economy in Transition (PhD

thesis) Princeton University Princeton NJInternational Labour Office various years Yearbook of Labour Statistics International Labour

Office GenevaIshikawa S 1967 Economic Development in Asian Perspective Kinokuniya TokyoIshikawa S 1980 An interpretative summary In Labor Absorption in Agriculture The East Asian

Experience (ed W Gooneratne) pp 238ndash85 ILO-ARTE BangkokIshimura S 1981 Essays on Technology Employment and Institutions in Economic Development

Comparative Asian Experience Kinokuniya TokyoJack H W 1930 Present position in regard to rice production in Malaya In Proceedings of the

Fourth Pacific Science Congress Java 1929 Volume IV Agricultural Papers pp 33ndash44 Maksamp Van der Klits Bandung

James W E 1978 Agricultural growth against a land resource constraint The Philippine experi-ence comment Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 22 pp 206ndash209

Kato T 1991 When rubber came The Negeri Sembilan experience South-East Asian Studies 29pp 109ndash157

Knick Harley R 1988 Ocean freight rates and productivity 1740ndash1913 The primacy of mech-anical invention reaffirmed Journal of Economic History 48 pp 851ndash76

Latham A J H 1986a The international trade in rice and wheat since 1868 A study in marketintegration In The Emergence of A World Economy 1500ndash1914 (eds W Fischer R M McInnisand J Schneider ) pp 645ndash63 F Steiner Wiesbaden

Latham A J H 1986b South-East Asia A preliminary survey 1800ndash1914 In Migration acrossTime and Nations Population Mobility and Historical Contexts (eds L de Rosa and I A Glazier)pp 11ndash29 Holmes and Meier New York

Latham A J H and L Neal 1983 The international market in rice and wheat 1868ndash1914Economic History Review 34 pp 260ndash80

Lewis W A 1954 Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour Manchester Schoolof Economics and Social Studies 22 pp 139ndash91

Lim C Y 1967 Economic Development of Modern Malaya Oxford University Press Kuala LumpurLuytjes A 1937 De invloed van de rubberrestrictie op de bevolking van Nederlandsch-Indieuml

Economisch-Statistische Berichten 22 pp 709ndash713Luytjes A and G C W Chr Tergast 1930 Bevolkingscultuur van handelsgewassen en rijstvoorzie-

ning in de Buitengewesten Korte Mededeelingen van de Afdeeling Landbouw Departement vanLandbouw Nijverheid en Handel No10 Archipel Bogor

Mamat S Bin 1984 Poverty Reduction in the Rice Sector in Malaysia A Study of Six Villages inthe Muda Irrigation Scheme (PhD thesis) University of Wisconsin Madison WI

Manarungsan S 1989 Economic Development of Thailand 1850ndash1950 Response to the Challengeof the World Economy Faculty of Economics University of Groningen Groningen

Murray M J 1980 The Development of Capitalism in Colonial Indochina 1870ndash1940 Universityof California Press Berkeley

National Statistics Office various years Statistical Handbook of The Philippines National StatisticsOffice Manila

North D C 1958 Ocean freight rates and economic development Journal of Economic History18 pp 537ndash55

Oshima H T 1983 Why monsoon Asia fell behind the West since the 16th Century ConjecturesPhilippine Review of Economics and Business 20 pp 163ndash203

Oshima H T 1987 Economic Growth in Monsoon Asia A Comparative Study Tokyo UniversityPress Tokyo


Owen N G 1971 The rice industry of mainland South-East Asia 1850ndash1914 Journal of the SiamSociety 59 pp 75ndash143

Palacpac A 1991 World Rice Statistics 1990 IRRI Los BanosRamsson R E 1977 Closing Frontiers Farmland Tenancy and Their Relations A Case Study of

Thailand 1937ndash73 (PhD Thesis) University of Illinois Urbana ILSansom R B 1970 The Economics of Insurgency in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam MIT Press

CambridgeSaxon E and K Anderson 1982 Japanese agricultural protection in historical perspective

Australia-Japan Research Centre Research Paper No 92 Australia-Japan Research CentreAustralian National University Canberra Australia

Siamwalla A 1972 Land labor and capital in three rice-growing deltas of South-East Asia 1800ndash1940 Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No 150 Yale University New Haven

Siok-Hwa C 1968 The Rice Industry of Burma 1852ndash1940 University of Malaya Press Singa-pore pp 237ndash38

Smits M B 1928 De voornaamste middelen van bestaan van de inlandsche bevolking derBuitengewesten Mededeelingen van de Afdeeling Landbouw Departement van LandbouwNijverheid en Handel No 14 Archipel Bogor

Tanaka K 1991 A note on typology and evolution of Asian rice culture Toward a comparativestudy of the historical development of rice culture in tropical and temperate Asia South-EastAsian Studies 28 pp 563ndash73

Taylor D C 1981 The Economics of Malaysian Paddy Production and Irrigation AgriculturalDevelopment Council Bangkok

Taylor H C and A D Taylor 1943 World Trade in Agricultural Products Macmillan New YorkTerra G J A 1958 Farm systems in South-East Asia Netherlands Journal of Agricultural

Science 6 pp 157ndash82Thoburn J T 1997 Primary Commodity Exports and Economic Development Theory Evidence

and a Study of Malaysia Wiley LondonTimmer C P 1988 The agricultural transformation In Handbook of Development Economics

Vol 1 (eds H Chenery and T N Srinivasan) pp 275ndash331 North Holland AmsterdamTyers R and K Anderson 1992 Disarray in World Food Markets A Quantitative Assessment

Cambridge University Press CambridgeUmemura M S Yamada Y Hayami N Takamatsu and M Kumazaki 1967 Long-Term

Economic Statistics of Japan Vol 9 Agriculture Toyo Keizai Simposha TokyoVan der Eng P 1993 The Silver Standard and Asiarsquos Integration into the World Economy 1850ndash

1914 Working Paper in Economic History No 175 Australian National University CanberraVan der Eng P 1996 Agricultural Growth in Indonesia Productivity Change and Policy Impact

since 1880 St Martinrsquos Press New YorkWickezer D and M K Bennett 1941 The Rice Economy of Monsoon Asia Food Research Insti-

tute Stanford University StanfordWilson C M 1983 Thailand A Handbook of Historical Statistics Hall Boston pp 212ndash5Win K 1991 A Century of Rice Improvement in Burma IRRI Maila pp 147ndash8Zelinsky W 1950 The Indochinese Peninsula A Demographic Anomaly Far Eastern Quarterly

9 pp 115ndash45


substantial differences in the technologies used to produce rice particularly inSouth-East Asia are ignored in efforts to generalize the development experienceof the region

In broad terms but largely on the basis of China and Japan Bray (19831986) and Oshima (1983 1987) argued that most of Asia was densely popu-lated and that only irrigated rice could sustain high population densitiesbecause it produced higher yields than other staple foods Such yields couldonly be achieved with high inputs of labor per hectare on small farms Forthat reason mechanization of agriculture and therefore large-scale agriculturalproduction as in Western Europe was impossible In short rice productionin Asia offered few opportunities for producers to reap economies of scaleand higher levels of labor productivity unlike wheat production in WesternEurope

Unfortunately this thesis takes no account of the fact that particularly inSouth-East Asia population densities varied considerably and that farmers inrice-exporting countries were apparently able to produce rice more economicallythan colleagues in rice-importing countries such as Japan Hence this interpre-tation is at best applicable to the densely populated parts of South-East Asiarather than the rice-exporting countries of mainland South-East Asia Few at-tempts have actually been made to quantify long-term changes in labor produc-tivity in rice agriculture or to compare levels of labor productivity across therice-producing countries in Asia Such estimates help to assess whether Asianrice farmers were indeed unable to achieve higher levels of labor productivityThey may also help to understand the basic causes of the comparative advantageof the rice-exporting countries

The next section discusses the position of South-East Asia in the inter-national rice economy Section III highlights the paradigms that have beenused to understand the development of rice production technology SectionIV argues that not land productivity but labor productivity is the key factorin understanding comparative advantage in rice production This sectionuses disparate historical estimates of labor input per hectare to quantify thelevels of labor productivity in rice agriculture in South-East Asia and JapanThe differences in labor productivity across East Asia are explained insection V

For lack of space several factors that influenced long-term changes inrice production in the countries of South-East Asia cannot be discussed heresuch as the fact that rice and non-rice food crops were substitutes in productionand consumption land tenure access to capital postwar government marketinterventions and the organization of the rice trade2 For the sake of the argu-ment the present article focuses on the key factor underlying labor productivityand comparative advantage in rice production production technology

2 See Wickezer and Bennett (1941) Barker and Herdt (1985)







ASIA

N E

CO

NO

MIC

JOU

RN

AL




















190913 192428 193438 195961 196971 197981 198991 19992001




faostatfaoorg)



































Japan18771901 283 193 35 68190817 287 243 35 85192430 253 261 40 103193143 254 269 39 106195157 237 296 42 125195863 206 350 49 170196470 169 379 59 224197180 106 413 95 391198190 68 446 147 653

Java187580 232 122 43 53192330 210 111 48 53195561 189 117 53 62196869 166 139 60 84197780 152 204 66 134198792 116 293 86 252


Table 3 (continued)



Thailand190609 63 097 158 154193034 50 088 202 178195369 84 084 119 100197079 87 106 114 121198088 76 119 132 157



Cambodia1899 67 091 149 1361930s 79 065 127 821950s 66 074 151 112198889 148 086 68 58

Philippines195061 66 076 150 114196574 76 097 132 127197582 109 128 92 118198590 81 169 124 210

Burma1932 57 093 175 163197781 79 141 127 180












1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980


Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i









1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45







ASIA

N E

CO

NO

MIC

JOU

RN

AL




















190913 192428 193438 195961 196971 197981 198991 19992001




faostatfaoorg)



































Japan18771901 283 193 35 68190817 287 243 35 85192430 253 261 40 103193143 254 269 39 106195157 237 296 42 125195863 206 350 49 170196470 169 379 59 224197180 106 413 95 391198190 68 446 147 653

Java187580 232 122 43 53192330 210 111 48 53195561 189 117 53 62196869 166 139 60 84197780 152 204 66 134198792 116 293 86 252


Table 3 (continued)



Thailand190609 63 097 158 154193034 50 088 202 178195369 84 084 119 100197079 87 106 114 121198088 76 119 132 157



Cambodia1899 67 091 149 1361930s 79 065 127 821950s 66 074 151 112198889 148 086 68 58

Philippines195061 66 076 150 114196574 76 097 132 127197582 109 128 92 118198590 81 169 124 210

Burma1932 57 093 175 163197781 79 141 127 180












1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980


Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i









1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45













190913 192428 193438 195961 196971 197981 198991 19992001




faostatfaoorg)



































Japan18771901 283 193 35 68190817 287 243 35 85192430 253 261 40 103193143 254 269 39 106195157 237 296 42 125195863 206 350 49 170196470 169 379 59 224197180 106 413 95 391198190 68 446 147 653

Java187580 232 122 43 53192330 210 111 48 53195561 189 117 53 62196869 166 139 60 84197780 152 204 66 134198792 116 293 86 252


Table 3 (continued)



Thailand190609 63 097 158 154193034 50 088 202 178195369 84 084 119 100197079 87 106 114 121198088 76 119 132 157



Cambodia1899 67 091 149 1361930s 79 065 127 821950s 66 074 151 112198889 148 086 68 58

Philippines195061 66 076 150 114196574 76 097 132 127197582 109 128 92 118198590 81 169 124 210

Burma1932 57 093 175 163197781 79 141 127 180












1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980


Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i









1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45


































Japan18771901 283 193 35 68190817 287 243 35 85192430 253 261 40 103193143 254 269 39 106195157 237 296 42 125195863 206 350 49 170196470 169 379 59 224197180 106 413 95 391198190 68 446 147 653

Java187580 232 122 43 53192330 210 111 48 53195561 189 117 53 62196869 166 139 60 84197780 152 204 66 134198792 116 293 86 252


Table 3 (continued)



Thailand190609 63 097 158 154193034 50 088 202 178195369 84 084 119 100197079 87 106 114 121198088 76 119 132 157



Cambodia1899 67 091 149 1361930s 79 065 127 821950s 66 074 151 112198889 148 086 68 58

Philippines195061 66 076 150 114196574 76 097 132 127197582 109 128 92 118198590 81 169 124 210

Burma1932 57 093 175 163197781 79 141 127 180












1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980


Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i









1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45


Table 3 (continued)



Thailand190609 63 097 158 154193034 50 088 202 178195369 84 084 119 100197079 87 106 114 121198088 76 119 132 157



Cambodia1899 67 091 149 1361930s 79 065 127 821950s 66 074 151 112198889 148 086 68 58

Philippines195061 66 076 150 114196574 76 097 132 127197582 109 128 92 118198590 81 169 124 210

Burma1932 57 093 175 163197781 79 141 127 180












1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980


Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i









1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45









1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980


Malaya 021 023 024 016 090 118 126 238i









1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45



1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 1990














































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45






































VI Conclusion






Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45



Japan


Java


Thailand




Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45



Tonkin






Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45





Cambodia


Philippines



Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45


Burma










































































9 pp 115ndash45







































































9 pp 115ndash45

productivity and comparative advantage in rice agriculture in

Documents