Investment in Agriculture A Cost-Benefit Analysis-Rejoinder

capitalist than a 50-acre holding cultivated extensively, growing say rain-fed millets.
Grouping by size blurs scale effects in the following way. Take Table 1, the data on labour-hiring grouped by farm size. It may be that there a re some intensively cultivated, primarily wage-labour based (i e rich peasant) holdings of loss than 5 acres, which raise the average value of y for this size-group; while there are some extensive, primarily family labour-based (i e middle peasant) holdings of more than 10 acres which lower the average value of y for the more-than-10 acres size-group. The table would then understate the range, of variation of y, and therefore understate the extent of differentiation within the peasantry. The same data grouped by value of output, on tho other hand, would show a larger range of values of y, and give a more accurate idea of the differentiation.4 (3) (a) Mow do I "calculate surplus value created by wage labour considering that there is inevitably a large proportion of family labour going into production?" In my sample the top 1/3 of holdings (each producing output value at Rs 1 lakh or more) used no family labour at all, while for others the number of farm servants alone (excluding casual labour) exceeded family workers by multiples of 2.5 or more, the average number of farm servants per holding being 8. For the holdings with annual value of output of less than Rs 1 lakh, a small element of return to family labour is included; in short the rates of surplus value increase even more sharply with scale than my table indicates.