During the seminar I hope to demonstrate:
That it may be in the farmer's interest not to produce at the level of intensity (kg/are of water surface area/year) that his resource endowment would seem to permit.
That changes in technology (combination of factors of production) can be spurred by changes in the (relative) prices of inputs used, as well as by changes in prices of other agricultural products (but which compete with fish farming for inputs).
And that, in the end, price changes accompanying economic growth in a rural economy may make it rational for the farmer to abandon his ponds.
I then hope to convince participants that:
The major long-term purpose of government assistance for fish culture is to maintain national income, and preferably to generate a continuing increase in this income; that is, to cause economic growth.
The public resources used to support fish farming should therefore be related to the extent to which a particular fish farming activity is likely to generate national income and stimulate economic growth.
In stagnant rural economies, with large unemployment (or underemployment), the “consumption effect” may justify seemingly excessive support for the introduction and maintenance of rural fish farming.
