Generally speaking, countries that use a large percentage of their labor force for agriculture are poor, developing countries that have yet to modernize. Because so many people are involved in agriculture, the populations are overwhelmingly rural and farms tend to be very small holdings.
The U.S. went from 5,647,800 farms with an average size of 213 acres in 1950 to 2,075,510 farms with an average of 449 acres in 2000 (1). The farms got bigger as the number of hands needed to run them got smaller. This is a sure sign of modernization. All of that labor was put to other productive uses in the manufacturing and service industries. It is also no surprise that the percentage of urban population increased from 64.2% in 1950 to 79.1% by 2000 (2) as people moved where the jobs are.
Today, only around 0.6% of the U.S. labor force works in farming, forestry, or fishing and agriculture accounts for only 1.2% of the GDP. The United States uses only 0.21% of land for permanent crops. (3)
In Thailand 42.6% of the labor force works in agriculture; Vietnam 55.6% of the labor force works in agriculture; Indonesia the percentage is 42.1 %; and in Laos, a whopping 80% of the labor force works in agriculture. (4) Not surprisingly, SE Asia is still overwhelmingly rural.
Singapore and Brunei have less than 1% of their labor force in agriculture and, respectively, have the fourth and fifth largest per capita GDP in the world (5). The third largest per capita GDP in SE Asia is Malaysia with only 9.7% of the labor force working in agriculture (6). Down the line, the higher percentage of the labor force working in agriculture, the lower the per capita GDP.
Clearly, SE Asia has yet to break free of the agrarian past. The colonial powers exploited SE Asia primarily for agricultural products at the expense of development of manufacturing and service industries. SE Asia must modernize its agricultural system and put its labor force into the manufacturing and service industries or else it will largely remain poor.
1. Land in Farms. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service
Washington Field Office. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Historic_Data/economics/landinfm.pdf (accessed February 18, 2008).
2. Globalis. "United States: Urban Population." http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=US (accessed February 18, 2008).3. CIA World Factbook 2008. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
I agree that one can tell much about a village and its subsistence on farming. Many have left the villages for the cities looking for more lucrative jobs. Many have succeeded, but many women have gotten bogged down in the sex trade either as prostitues or sex slaves.
ReplyDeleteMany farmers do not use implments of industrial farming like technology or use of chemicals, though I am not sure that this is the answer. Many are now attempting to farm on hillsides or on lands that do not support crops.
More than fifty percent of Asia is now industries that do not have to do with farming, so this indicates that SE Asia is moving away from farming and into other industries.
I am not sure if getting rid of the villages completely is the answer as it offers some level of stability among families and some type of unity, though I do agree that it is not econiomically viable for the future.
The fact is, the most prosperous countries use very little of their labor force for agriculture. Most of the countries in SE Asia are poor because they use too much of their labor force on agriculture. The number should be less than 10% and many use more than 40%. They need to modernize with machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, crop rotation, etc. to get the percentage down to under 5% and utilize all of that labor somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteIt is, of course, more complicated. SE Asia also needs to dramatically boost its education system and get out of the way of entrepreneurial activity.
India, while still extremely poor and with 60% of the labor force in agriculture, at least got rid of some of the absurd regulations that kept their people from starting businesses. They have a large education network cranking out engineers, entrepreneurial minded people, and an emerging middle class. If the government stays out of the way, in a generation or two, India will be a major economic powerhouse.
I should also note that suggesting that SE Asia should get rid of the village was hyperbole on my part. Urbanization has its own serious problems. We get a higher standard of living, but we also get pollution, overcrowding, urban blight, and more dependence on government and large corporations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in no reality is a country employing 40% or more of its labor force in agriculture a good thing. SE Asia has some serious problems and getting rid of the villages and sticking people in cities would not change much. Modernizing agriculture and increasing education would change a lot.
The village in SE Asia is a representation of the agrarian trap. Subsistence farming to feed the family is noble, but it is a sure recipe for staying extremely poor.