The structure of Indian agriculture underwent rapid changes during the nineties
both due to the pressure of commercialisation and increased dependence on trade. This
was fuelled by many overt and covert changes in the sector, but diversification of crops along with the advent of WTO and liberalisation policies were the main players in the structural change. One of the important bottleneck, highlighted by many analysts of
Indian agriculture refers to the small size of holdings and the inability of the Indian
farmers to compete with the large scale farming of the West. This was manifested in
the proverbial “level playing field” often referred to in recent debates. One of the ways
to deal with this small scale farm operations is to bring small and marginal holders (not
holdings) together in a production system so as to deal with a particular product. This
would address three important issues simultaneously. First, the access to technology by the small and marginal farmers has been quite restricted and it is was only available to those who could garner information at a fast speed. The recent NSSO report (59th Round) highlights this fact. Second, small and marginal farmers faced discriminated pricing both in the factor and product markets and that has resulted in reducing their net income flow. Lastly, the capability of small and marginal farmers has always been far better than their large holding peers in terms of productivity and quality of land. But all these years that could not be taken advantage of due to the scale and limited access to technology. These aspects need immediate attention and as society responds quietly to the challenges in its own manner, contract farming has emerged in the country like the Pepsi Model initiated in Punjab. The experience has given rise to a large number of controversies including over-exploitation of land, tendency towards monoculture, market dependence, asymmetry about sharing gains between contractors and contractees and the exploitation by contractors. There are a good number of indepth studies available in the literature on contract farming analysing these issues but not much has been done in the context of Karnataka, where it is emerging steadily but firmly as an alternative. It assumes additional significance as in Karnataka, contract farming is emerging in the resource constrained region with low capital formation as its hallmark. The study by Dr. S.Erappa is an attempt to fill this void. The study emerged out of his personal keen interest and persuasion. Therefore, the study indicates his concerted efforts and analytical prowess. He has analysed five different contracting agencies and contract farmers connected with these agencies in Southern Karnataka. The basic hypothesis attempted in the study is to look into the question of “boon or bane”. The answer provided is not in terms of monosyllables but provides a good
background analysis, in addition to the coverage in the field. He has been successful in bringing out a few basic problems in contract farming in Southern Karnataka.
I am sure that this study would be useful to those who are looking at the regional specification of contract farming models and responses of various farm groups
in the process. The study will also be useful to academics working in this field to fish
out new questions in the process.
