| Agriculture and rural development in the 1990s and beyond: redesigning the chemistry between state and institutions of development (1992) |
1/ We use the term ‘paradigm shift’ in a loose sense, and not in the ‘history of science’ sense. The liberty taken is regretted but so commonly is the phrase misused, that there is no better way to stress a change in framework of thought except by calling it "paradigm shift".
2/ This is in keeping with the well-known Kuznets studies. What is disturbingly not in keeping with the international experience is the extremely limited transfer of labour from primary to secondary and tertiary sectors. In most economies, the process of labour transfer invariably accompanied industrialisation and material progress; in the Indian case this has not happened to the same extent (see Kuznets,1966).
3/ The term ‘state’ has been used to imply several things. Throughout this paper, we have meant by ‘state’, the institution of national governance. While the state is an ‘institution’, government is an organisation.
4/ This usage of the term ‘monitor’ is recent and was introduced in the economic theory by transaction cost economists (see Furubotn and Pejovich,1981).
5/ See, eg. Taylor (1990); Jensen (1989); Johnson (1990); Rappaport (1990); Drucker (1991)
6/ One of the central theses of Olson’s work was that all those efforts at collective action which result in the production of a public good cannot work except through coercive elicitation of member participation and contribution (see Olson, 1967).
7/ In many states, electricity boards do specify as an explicit clause in their contract for a new power connection for irrigation that the well owner will not use his well to supply water to his neighbour. This sounds incredible particularly when there are numerous small holders who can hardly afford their own well and who can derive enormous benefit from an opportunity to buy irrigation from a neighbouring well owner.