There is a group of thinkers (Barker, Wilson, Barsodi and Humphries, etc,) commonly said to be having an orthodox view, which holds that agriculture is par exellence the fundamental industry.
The usual explanation is that since it feeds the world agriculture is the basis of the existence of human race.
It is indispensable for providing raw material for many industries and provides a considerable part of the materials for trade, hence it is the foundation of manufacture and commerce. It is the first settled occupation and tven to-day it is by far the most important and numerically superior industry, since roughly 2/3 of the world population depends on it. The beginning of Industrial Revolution was made earlier in agriculture and it made the revolution in industry possible.
The rapid increase in world population was made possible by a great increase in agricultural production, Barsodi goes to the extent of saying that “there is not only something wrong with modern agriculture but that there is also something wrong with modern life, and thereby he suggests that modern life which is becoming more and more mechanical, commercial and artificial should be adjusted to rural and agricultural life which is more natural. Rural population occupies a basic place in the social structure, and it is the source of human race. Farmers are in a peculiar sense and degree of basic importance to society, Agriculture furnishes the basis and substance of prosprity in other fields ; and Humphries holds that “If agriculture in the widest sense can be made prospeious, then the whole world will very shortly become more prosperous as well.” It will never be possible to have a civilization wholly urban and industrial which may neglect agriculture completely. Ht nee, agriculture is said to be lundamental in the sense of absolutely controlling other businesses. These thinkers believe that without the basic contributions of agriculture all the rest of the fabric of our civilization would topple into ruins. Hence, they have a faith in agricultural fundamentalism Soundness of this faith is challenged by another group of thinkers popularly known to be having the modern view.
J, S. Davis is one of the most popular representative of this group, and he holds that The wealth and welfare of nations depends upon many complex conditions.
To-day agriculture is not uniquely basic, and the prosperity of a nation depends largely on other factors than the work of those who till the soil nl This is supported by the following arguments : The study of economic history shows that economic progress, broadly speaking, tends to be accompanied by a decline in the relative importance of agriculture. This is true, if not universely, of most nations in most periods and of the world as a whole.
To-day we find in the countries of more advanced standard of living a trend towards a gradual decline of the
place of agriculture in their national economy.
This isvisible in the falling ratio of agricultural wealth to total national wealth, falling percentage of agricultural income to national income, falling index of the net output of agriculture as compared with that of industries, declining rate of increase in rural population as compared with the urban population and the absolute contraction of numbers engaged in agriculture leading to a falling ratio of agricultural population to the total population, and the decrease in the per capita demand for agricultural efforts, These are the extreme views. A more balanced view is taken by others like Karl Brandt, H. R, Tolley and P, Chew, who after considering both eastern and western countries and agricultural and industrial communities, assign to agriculture a status equal to that of other sectors of economy, They hold that one part of the country cannot be happy and prosperous if another part is in distress. K. Brandt holds that “farmers are a vital part of the arterial system of circulation through which flow the goods and services of the national economy.
The nation depends on properly functioning farms as important sources of primary materials, foods and fibres. Yet the farms cannot be treated as an independent object of policies, nor can they be made prosperous in emancipation from the remainder of the economy. Nor can the conditions creating mass unemployment and decreased output in cities be cured by maintaining or restoring economic well-being to the farmers alone.
A still better explanation is given by T, W. Schultz, W . W. Wilcox, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Royal Institute of International affairs, London. By explaining the complex nature of the modern economic society they emphasise the interdependence and the close relationship of the various sectors of economy or groups of the society instead of saying which is fundamental or which is more important They say that the size is not the supreme test of importance, as the height or weight of a man is no indication of his importance or prestige. The quantitative tests such as the physical volume of output, the amount and the ratio of income to total income and the number of
persons engaged in it.
etc., are misleading in this regard, At lower levels of economic development economic activity may be compartmentalized, but as a country makes an advance the interdepence of various sectors increases, and their relationship becomes more close. In its economic evolution when a country grows to a specialized production and a relatively free exchange of goods it becomes impossible to say which part is more important, since it is the mutual stimulous and the reciprocal behaviour o{ different parts which make the progress possible.
The nature of modern economic society is becoming more complex than ever before. This implies a gradually lesser degree of self-sufficiency of different sectors, or a lesser degree of self-contained economy, or a greater degree of dependence on each other. In this ever changing relationship we cannot establish the fundamentalism of any.
It is true that farming is the first settled occupation, that it employs a large section of population, that it produces food which is the basis of life, that it provides materials for trade and manufacture, and that in terms of output it is the most important. But man does not live by bread alone specially in more advanced countries. “When we
say that it is in any sense more a generator of income in modern society than other occupations, we fail to understand the true nature of modern economic society ..An efficient agriculture made up of farm families with a high standard of living and a high buying power per person contributes much towards a high national income and the economic well-being of the nation, but the same can be said for each of the other group,.,
It is impossible to say which is most important in modern economic society.
Though agriculture will continue to produce food,2 the basis of life, it does not prove that it should be considered to be the most important of all occupations, An efficient agriculture providing an adequate and stable farm income and attaining increasingly regular sufficiency of food is no index of economic progress of a nation.
Progress in modern times is indicated by an adequate leisure and an adequate provision of the means enjoying that leisure, i, e t1 consumption of goods and services that make life rich and wholesome, in short worth living. To this maximum satis faction all occupations and sections contribute.
In the economic society which is organized like this it is neither easy nor desirable to demarcate the essential and the nonessential sectors, nor can they be rated in order of their importance.
Really speaking, it is futile now to argue the relative importance of land, labour and capital, It is highly problematical whether these factors of production, while functioning in the real world, can be sorted into neatly cut and divided, either three or more mutually exclusive, categories.
relative importance of land, labour and capital, It is highly problematical whether these factors of production, while
functioning in the real world, can be sorted into neatly cut and divided, either three or more mutually exclusive, categories.
