ABSTRACT
Yet well over two-thirds of the published research into ‘what MVs do to the poor’ relates to this, the fourth or fifth most important issue.1 The literature asks: do small farmers and tenants in MV ‘lead areas’—areas like the Indian Punjab (wheat and rice), Central Luzon in the Philippines (rice), Sonora in Mexico (wheat) or Trans Nzoia in Kenya (hybrid maize)— adopt MVs, and if so soon or late (section b of this chapter)? Over what proportion of farm area (section c)? With what backing from other inputs, such as fertilizer (section d)? What prices do poorer MV users pay for their inputs, and receive for their crops (section e)? As a result-bearing in mind the impact of MV activity in raising demand prices for farm inputs, and in lowering supply price for the crops produced-how are smaller farms and tenants in ‘leading areas’ affected by MVs in respect of yield, efficiency and income (section f)? If they do benefit, will they be taken over or evicted (section g)? Apart from these effects of MVs on small farmers’ average income in ‘lead areas’, how are such farmers affected by the greater or lesser risk, associated both with MVs and with the consequently2 greater dependence of farmers on commercialization (section h)?
