Migrant Remittances and Agricultural Development

Migrant Remittances and Agricultural Development Thoric CederstrCm Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona, Tucson

Introduction Migrants from rural areas often remit substantial amounts ofcapital to households and communities. Academic opinion remains divided over how these capital flows affect the village agricultural economy. Neoclassical economists tend to see migration and subsequent remittances as beneficial: agricultural production rises, incomes increase, and general rural conditions improve. Historical-structuralist interpretations, however, argue that remittances create unequal access to resources and thereby increase social stratification. Previous studies often do not specify the particular economic, ecological, and political condition s under which remittances may occur. As a result, they fail to evaluate adequately the consequences for the rural economy. This paper discusses factors that influence a household's decision to invest in agriculture. Data from the Mixteca Baja region of Mexico illustrate how some households can profitably engage in cash-cropping due to outside economic support from migrants. Throughout central Mexico, peasant farmers are migrating to better opportunities. The "push" factors are readily identifiable: population pressures, land shortages, limited off-farm employment opportunities, low agricultural productivity, and poor market prices. "Pull" factors range from higher wages and better education to the "bright lights" of the city. For whatever specific reason, farmers perceive better conditions elsewhere and migrate.

Remittances and Investment in Agriculture How migrant remittances affect rural communities has been intensely debated for 10 years. Bohning presents one viewpoint: "Doubts have been raised with regard not only to the relief of unemployment but also to the purely beneficial nature of remittances, and some observers have considered emigration detrimental to the development of these countries" (1975: 251). Griffin argues the contrary: Internal migration is likely to improve the distribution of income in rural areas . and accelerate capital formation and technical change on small peasant farms. Migration, in effect, enables the peasantry to overcome the imperfections of the rural credit market by creating opportunities to amass finance capital in the cities for subsequent investment in agriculture (1976: 359). Stark (1976) reviews the research and agrees that migration creates favorable conditions for rural development. Rempel and Lobdell's literature review and research in

Kenya concludes the opposite: There is little evidence that urban-rural remittances have been a significant means to rural economic development" (1981: 324). Their research indicates that despite massive remittances, agricultural development is inconsequential. Wood and McCoy (1986) and Griffith (1985) concur that remittances have contributed little to local agricultural development. In their research on Caribbean migrants, monies were earmarked for maintenance; few were invested. Other studies have begun to clarify the role of remittances in household economics and the conditions for agricultural investment.

Household Utilization of Remittances For many rural households, migrants' remittances form a major portion of household monetary income (Deere and Dejanvry, 1979). For others, only a small percentage of total monetary income comes from remittances (Oberai and Singh, 1980). How rural households prioritize remittances is not well understood. Pioneering research suggests that consumption values, substitute investment possibilities, and factor endowment (e.g., access to productive resources) influence the utilization of remittances (Arizpe, 1981; Wiest, 1979; Reichert, 1981). Consumption values clearly favor improved housing. Almost 50 percent of remittances is spent on house construction, whereas only 9 percent is invested in land acquisition (Stanton Russell, 1986: 686). Consumption values, however, correlate with the production possibilities of households. Households initially restricted in productive resources and ability to acquire more spend the majority of remittances on daily food needs or consumer goods (Stuart and Kearney, 1981). Better-off households, which have a higher initial consumption level, spend outside income on housing or land purchases but not necessarily for increased agricultural production (Rhoades, 1978). Land is often purchased as a savings edge against inflation rather than as productive investment. Investment in land or modern technology also varies with a household's resource endowment (Arizpe, 1981), the amount and frequency of remittances (Rempel and Lobdell, 1981), the regional market structure (Saint and Goldsmith, 1980), the availability of additional productive resources (Exter, 1976), and the managerial experience of the farmer (Gladwin, 1980). A conditional hypothesis emerges at the household level. Given stable ecological conditions and a "favorable" initial resource endowment, a household may find the return on their investment in land and improved technology desirable if 1) market demand for farm products is sufficient and constant and there are no debilitating distortions or imperfections in the market, 2) productive land is available at reasonable prices, 3) adequate capital is available, and 4) a farmer has the necessary skills and knowledge. Each independent variable affects the variation in the dependent variable according to its importance within the local context. In semiarid environments with erratic rainfall, for eximple, irrigation determines the productive capacity of land. Prolonged droughts discourage investment in tgricul-

ture because of the high risk involved. Market access can also influence agriculture investment. Market distortion due to monopolistic control by a few large producers or importers restricts competition by new small-scale entrepreneurs. Imperfections due to transport or communication problems may retard regional agricultural development regardless of the productive potential. Finally, land availability depends on regional demography and the local land tenure system (Arizpe, 1981; Exter, 1976). Communities with high population-to-land ratios simply may not have sufficient resources for expanded production. The ejido collective farm discourages capital improvements, since ownership is uncertain and additional land is available only through illegal rental and sharecropping arrangements. Equally important, credit and marketing are controlled by the federal government (Finkler, 1978). Private property communities, on the other hand, have more flexibility in acquiring new land and establishing informal share arrangements. Farmers more readily direct remittances to purchase land and make capital improvements. Adequate capital and management skills are also crucial for agricultural development. Certain technologies require large investments and cash crops can be risky, requiring the farmer to absorb losses some years. If remittances are few and infrequent, a farmer may not want to risk his limited capital on an uncertain venture. To decrease uncertainty, a farmer must know regional market conditions and the production risk involved. As well, he must possess the necessary management skills. Farmers with prior commercial experience will more likely invest remittances, because they already have confidence as well as the necessary productive resources. A decision to convert monetary capital into productive capital represents the valuing of investment over savings or consumption: the farmer is trying to expand his production possibilities (Upton, 1973). Finally, how a farmer spends the money from migrants depends on substitute investment possibilities. If opportunities for greater yield exist, then investment will probably occur there. Retailing seems to be the most common activity, though small villages can be readily saturated with stores selling similar merchandise (Rhoades, 1978). Evaluation of the impact of remittances requires definition of the production possibilities of farming households according to land tenure, regional market structure, ecological conditions, flow and volume of remittances, alternative investment opportunities, and the knowledge and skills of the farm manager. In the section that follows, the impacts of remittances on the agriculture of one community in the Mixteca Baja are discussed.

The Mixteca Bafa Region The peasant farming communities of the Mixteca Baja provide an excellent data base for studying remittances. Availability of land and water varies greatly from village to village, rates of out-migration are very high, and remittances from migrants are frequent and substantial. The semiarid region of the Mixteca Baja, cross-cutting

southern Puebla, northern Oaxaca, and eastern Guerrero, is broken by mountain ranges and small valleys with seasonally flowingrivers.Rainfall averages around 500 mm a year. Dryland agriculture, consequently, is highly unstable. Productive agriculture requires irrigation. Unfortunately, water is scarce, unevenly distributed, and often concentrated among wealthy landowners called caciques. Soils vary in quality and productivity; many are high in calcium carbonate and salts. Although irrigated agriculture is highly productive, dryland production is low. The region lacks general infrastructure development. Transportation is difficult, communication rudimentary, markets fragmented, and agricultural extension still in its infancy. Although the government provides some basic services—health care, education, potable water, and electricity—many communities remain isolated. Likewise, general unemployment prevails. Besides restricted job opportunities that exist in the public and retail sector, other employment is limited. Virtually no industrial manufacturing exists. The sale of animals and agricultural produce or the weaving of palm hats offer farmers the only local source of cash (Cederstrom et al., 1990). Many households find it difficult to survive under prevailing market conditions: agricultural or artisan production usually does not provide for household maintenance (Stuart and Kearny, 1981). Economic and political power in the region remains centralized. Since the revolution of 1917 much land has been redistributed, but irrigated land has remained concentrated among descendents of Spaniards. These former large landowners still retain political and economic power, because they own the commercial and transportation services at the municipal and regional level. Their participation in the official ruling party (PRI—Partido Revoludonario Institudonal) also ensures their hegemony. Consequently, most governmental posts are occupied by caciques, family members, or sympathizers. High rates of population growth prevail in the region, resulting in land shortages. Consequently, villages wage intense battles over land. Community leaders gain prestige by securing village borders. Even the most barren mountainous regions are sources of conflict for their pasture and firewood potential. As a consequence of land scarcity, limited employment possibilities, low agricultural productivity, poor infrastructure development, and restricted economic and political opportunities, high rates of out-migration prevail throughout the region. In many communities, over half of the adult population has emigrated. Most farmers migrating permanently head for the slums of Mexico City, Puebla, Pachuca, San Luis Potosi, and Tijuana. Seasonal migrants find agricultural employment in Sinaloa and Sonora. International migrants are concentrated in southern California, although increasing

numbers work in Washington and Oregon. Since the late 1960s, most people are migrating permanently, life is difficult in the Mixteca region. One community illustrates how the local agricultural economy has become increasingly dependent on migrants' wages.

El Rosario Micaltepec, Puebla £1 Rosario, a small peasant community in the municipio of Petlalcingo, Puebla, consists of 62 families, all dependents of the original sharecroppers of "El Rancho del Rosario.* From 1932 to 1980, the sharecroppers and dependents purchased the ranch to form a community of small landowners. Currently, the community owns approximately 140 hectares. Family holdings average 2.25 hectares, although much land is of poor quality. Two interrelated agricultural systems coexist in £1 Rosario: dryland and irrigated. In both systems, the household is usually the unit of production and consumption, although surplus production is marketed. Dryland crop production centers around maize and beans, intercropped with different varieties of squash. Many farmers cultivate peanuts as the major dryland cash crop. Irrigated agriculture is much more diverse. Although some farmers grow maize on irrigated land, most dedicate this scarce resource to more lucrative crops such as sugar cane, tomatoes, anise, and cumin. These crops require much more labor. Farmers also value tree crops in irrigated zones. Mangos, oranges, lemons, zapotes, avocados, and bananas provide important income for many households. Growers usually market their produce directly in the local markets, or wholesale buyers arrive to purchase directly from producers, usually at a lower price. The farmers of £1 Rosario use traditional technology: oxen, single bottom plow, and hand tools—all worked by family labor. In cases of labor bottlenecks, peons may be hired if reciprocal labor exchanges are not possible. Tractors and trucks are scarce, so most haul their harvest to processing and storage by donkey. Transport to regional markets is by truck or bus. In dryland farming, the calendar begins in May with plowing. With the first good rains, usually in June, the planting of maize begins. Depending on the rains, the first cultivation occurs 2 weeks to a month later. The second cultivation depends on the rain, but it usually takes place 2 months after planting. Harvest begins in late November with the full moon and lasts into December. Most farmers finish before Christmas, although some work into the new year. Household labor bottlenecks at this time, and it is a struggle to finish on time. To alleviate the pressure, they hire additional labor. In irrigated agriculture, anise, cumin, and tomato production require 10 times the labor of dryland crops. Hired labor is needed to prepare fields, to plant, to cultivate, and to harvest the crop on time. For tree crops as well as tomatoes, chemical controls are necessary to control infestations and ensure profits. In good years, the maize and bean harvest usually satisfies the consumption needs of households. At other times, however, the harvest lasts only part of the year, forcing households to purchase maize, beans, and other foodstuffs. For example, from the 1987 harvest only seven households had adequate supplies of maize or beans. Of these seven, four had good irrigated land; the other three had only two members. Those families that purchase maize do so with cash from the sale of palm hats or with remittances. Since few other off-farm employment opportunities exist, house-

holds have no option other than weaving palm hats. Households that consistently fail to meet their basic needs locally are increasingly dependent on migrant remittances. In El Rosario, remittances have come to play an important role In farming. Migration, remittances, and agriculture Five periods of out-migration from El Rosario can be identified. The importance of remittances for agriculture varies during the five periods. 1. Veracruz. From the early 1940s through the early 1960s, men from El Rosario began to migrate seasonally to rural areas of Veracruz to plantations and packing plants. Others went to work on the construction of the Miguel Aleman dam. Some would go several times a year as the need arose. Wages paid were more than twice those received locally. Remittances had little impact on agriculture at this time. Money earned was destined for family maintenance, ritual obligations, and debt cancellation. Some farmers did buy animals. For many, earnings only covered living expenses and the return home. Obviously, the volume of outside income was insufficient for investment. Most migrants remember their experience in Veracruz as an unpleasant one, with back-breaking work, hot weather, and difficult living conditions. 2. United States Bracero Program. During the late 1950s to mid-1960s, many men from £1 Rosario participated in the bracero program. Most went to California, Arizona, and Texas. One went as far as Michigan. Expenditures of earnings varied according to the number of times a man participated in the program and the type of work he encountered in the United States. Some men went as many as five times to "ElNorte." Forty-five days was the maximum time period per trip. Some braceros, however, got selected twice in one year. Piece work invariably produced little gains to braceros, while hourly wages allowed some migrants to save money to bring back to the community. Those with successful experiences did invest earnings in land purchases, vehicles, oxen, and housing. Others had to spend earnings on the care of sick relatives. Some, less fortunate, were able only to cover the costs of their travels. A few incurred debts from unsuccessful attempts to be selected. 3. Cuautla. After the bracero program ended, men from £1 Rosario began to migrate seasonally to the tomato fields in Cuautla, Morelos, during the mid-1960s. Since Cuautla was much closer, transportation cost less than to Veracruz. As well, the work was easier, the climate was more agreeable, and living expenses were lower. Again, men would go several times a year in response to the inviting wage rate. Men could earn three times what day laborreceivedback home, like Veracruz migration, earnings were earmarked for household maintenance, ritual obligation, and civil obligations. During this time, the village government constructed an office and introduced public electricity. To finance these projects, quotas were assessed from each family. Few had access to the needed money locally and, consequently, they traveled to Cuautla to work for it. During this period, little investment in any aspect of tgri-

culture or housing occurred. Men stopped going to Cuautla In the early 1970s, although four families permanently settled there. 4. Mexico City. In the late 1960s, people from El Rosario began to migrate permanently to Mexico City, a pattern well established today. Currently, as soon as a young person finishes secondary school, he or she leaves to go to Mexico City. In contrast to earlier migration experiences, both men and women participate. In the early days migrants tended to concentrate in the informal sector of the economy: men worked as construction workers and women worked as domestic servants. Today, many migrants have successfully penetrated the lower levels of governmental institutions, while others work in factory Jobs. Some wholesale produce in the market or manage their own rotating retail stalls. Women no longer work as domestic servants. Most work in factories or as waitresses in restaurants. The majority of the migrants live in the same neighborhood—Ampliacion de Santiago— which facilitates social interaction and maintenance of community identity. £1 Rosario migrants meet together often for social events such as baptisms, birthdays, and weddings. Most return to £1 Rosario at least twice a year, usually during some religious holiday. At present, approximately 80 families from El Rosario reside in Mexico City. Mexico City migration has readily affected £1 Rosario in many ways. The most obvious consequence is population depletion. In 1969, the General list of Citizens listed 81 active households that were required to give fatigas— communal labor—in community service. Today, only 62 households remain active and eight older heads of households will soon retire. Demographic analysis reveals a conspicuous lack of adults males between the ages of 20 and 40 years. Many positions within the community's social and political system remain unfilled due to the lack of suitable candidates. Also during the present stage of Mexico City migration, agricultural day labor is becoming hard to find at affordable wages. Many young men simply refuse to do hard agricultural labor, preferring seasonal migration to Mexico City until they find permanent jobs. While labor is exiting, large remittance flows also begin at this time. At the community level, migrants in Mexico CltyorganizedtheAsoaactfnMicaltepecparaAsuntosBentficos (the Micaltepec Association for Beneficent Matters) in 1969 to help the village. Members organize fiestas and other projects for the village. Fiestas have become very spectacular events, with basketball tournaments, dances with expensive musical groups, decorations for the temple, and elaborate firework shows. Millions of pesos are spent. Migrants have cooperated in the construction of the kiosk, repair of the temple, and other community projects (CederstrGm, 1989). At the household level, migration has had equally important consequences. House construction has boomed. Concrete block homes cram village lots, all built with money sent by relatives living in Mexico City. For other households, remittances provide income needed for food purchases. Also, consumer goods such as stereos, televisions, refrigerators, stoves, blenders, and corn mills begin to appear in villagers' homes. More importantly, however, remit-

tances begin to affect agriculture in a serious way. Remittances have been spent in agriculture in five areas: land, technology, mechanized equipment, nonfamily labor, and animals. Land purchases. When Mexico City migration began in the late 1960s, some households were able to purchase land from other households financed by migrant remittances. The general scarcity of land, however, limited such transactions. In 1980, however, El Rosario negotiated the purchase of the last and the most productive section of the old Rancho de Rosario. The community made a collective bargain but divided the area into individual plots, which were purchased by households. Due to the economic support of migrants in Mexico City, many households increased their productive base at this time. Agricultural technology. Due to the access to outside income, six village households acquired oxen, water pumps, fumigators, and agricultural chemicals. Technology purchased with remittances permitted them to cultivate cash crops, especially tomatoes, avocados, and citrus fruits. The six households, encouraged to invest by access to irrigated land, had experience in producing the traditional cash crops of anise and cumin. In several cases, the purchase of a water pump permitted expansion of irrigated area, and the purchase of agrochemicals reduced risk. Additionally, the steady remittances acted as crop insurance in the event of unfavorable results. Mechanized equipment . Equally important, the purchase or rental of farm equipment, such as tractors, allowed these households to farm more productively. In general, these households have higher land and labor productivity in both dryland and irrigated agriculture than households that have not invested in agriculture. The return on these investments is reflected in the household consumption level. House construction is a good example. One successful farmer has constructed a house of concrete block, glass windows, tile floors, and cement roof. Villagers call it "the house that tomatoes built," because of the owner's success in growing tomatoes. His three brothers in Mexico City, employees of a telephone company, provided the money for tractor rental, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and laborers. They come back to the village during vacation to help harvest. Other material goods such as restrooms, gas stores, beds, televisions, and stereos attest to the relative affluence of these households. Hired labor. Households with access to outside income hire more outside, nonfamily labor than households without regularly contributing migrants. This also depends on the domestic cycle of the household and how much family labor is available as well as the market wages for nonfamily labor. The production of commercial crops depends upon labor availability, which can be expensive since many youths prefer temporary jobs in Mexico City rather than hard, agricultural day labor. Animals. Animals have traditionally been a source of savings in peasant economies. Farmers purchase young slaughter animals to raise on food saaps. At maturity, they are sold to pay for daily expenses or for ritual obligations.

Draft animals are considered Investments rather than savings because their labor contributes to agricultural production. In Rosarlo, both types of animals are purchased with migrant remittances. Households possessing irrigated lands dedicated to commercial crops have been able to acquire more traction and transport animals than dryland farmers. The same six households on the average have more comestible animals as well as traction-transport animals.

farming sector in the north of Mexico (Schumacher, 1981: Wionczek, 1982). Perhaps the federal government can take an active role in removing constraints and distortions that restrict profitable investment of remittances in the home community.

5. Migration to the United States. Although migration to the United States prevails throughout the Mixteca region, few people from El Rosario have gone there. Recently four youths migrated to the Los Angeles area, and three are in New York. In one case, a young man sent his father (U.S.) $2,300. The father is considering perforating a deep well for irrigation on his dryland property. The influx of U.S. dollars on a substantial scale will have major impacts on the local economy and has great potential for agricultural development.

Conclusions Clearly, the investment of remittances in agriculture in the Mixteca region depends on the following factors: availability of irrigated land, an open regional market, substantial and regular remittances, farmers experienced in cashcropping, lack of alternative investments, and consumption values that favor investment over immediate consumption. Investment did not occur before the period of Mexico City migration primarily because land was not available for purchase, and seasonal migration did not provide sufficient amounts of money to be invested. Other, more-pressing needs such as household maintenance and ritual obligations had to be met first. Expenditures in agriculture represent a decision by the household either to expand its productive enterprise through the acquisition of additional resources or to intensify current resources through a change in technology. Either choice may result in increased output. Of the 62 families of El Rosario, 10 percent of households were able to utilize remittances to increase their agricultural production either through land purchases, use of chemical Inputs, hiring additional labor, or utilizing mechanized equipment. In these terms, agricultural development has occurred to a certain degree. Lack of water for irrigation seems to be the major constraint restricting more expenditures in agriculture. Purchase of technology, although it may be affordable, confers no advantage because the water is simply not available. The social consequences of remittances, on the other hand, seem to follow the predictions of historical-structuralist models. Although incomes and standards of living have generally increased among all households, those households with an Initial advantage in resources have Increased their position relative to others through migration. Development does occur but at an unequal rate. Meager federal government attempts to promote agricultural development in the peasant sector have met with little success: major technical aid and credit funding have been largely concentrated in the capitalist

Map 1. Location of the Mixteca and Mixteca Baja in Middle America (after Moser 1977)

References Arizpe, L, 1981. Relay migration and the survival of the peasant household. In H. Safa (Ed.), Towards a political economy of urbanization in Third World countries. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bohning, W. R., 1975. Some thoughts on emigration from the Mediterranean Basin. International Labour Review 111(3)^51-77. Cederstrdm, T.N., 1989. Migrant village associations and community development in the Mixteca region of Mexico. Paper presented at 88th annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, November 15,1989, Washington, D.C. CederstrSm, T.N., 1990. Sin la palma, no comemos: La economia polftica de la industria de palma en la Mixteca Baja en su contexto hist6rico. In Noras mesoamericanas 13, Memorias del Segundo Simposlo de Cholula. Puebla: Universidad de las Americas. Deere, CD., and A. dejanvry, 1979. A conceptual framework for the empirical analysis of peasants. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61:601-11. Exter, T.G., 1976. Rural community structure and migration: a comparative analysis of Acatic and Acatlan de Juarez in Jalisco, Mexico. Latin American Studies Program, Dissertation Series No. 71. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University. Finkler, K., 1978. From sharecroppers to entrepreneurs: peasant household production strategies under the ejido system of Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change 27(l):103-20. Gladwin, C , 1980. Cognitive strategies and adoption decisions: study of non-adoption of an agronomic recommendation (Mexico). In D. Brokensha, D.M. Warren, and 0. Wemer (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and development. Washington, D.C: University Press of America.

Griffith, D., 1985. Women, remittances, and reproduction. American Ethnologist 12:676-90. Griffin, K., 1976. On the outmigration of the peasantry. World Development 4:5. Oberai, AS. and H.K.M. Singh, 1980. Migration, remittances and rural development. International Labour Review 119:229-41. Reichert, J.S., 1981. The migrant syndrome: seasonal U.S. wage labor and rural development in Central Mexico. Human Organization 40:(l):56-66. Rempel, H. and R.A. Lobdell, 1981. The role of urban-to-rural remittances in rural development. Journal of Development Studies July: 324-41. Rhoades, R., 1978. Intra-European return migration and rural development: lessons from the Spanish case. Human Organization 37:(2): 136-47. Saint, W.S. and W.W. Goldsmith, 1980. Cropping systems, structural change and rural-urban migration in Brazil. World Development 8:259-72. Schumacher, A., 1981. Agricultural development and rural development: a Mexican dilemma. Working Papers in U.S.-Mexican Studies 21. Program in United States-Mexican Studies. San Diego: University of California. Stanton Russell, S., 1986. Remittances from international migration: a review in perspective. World Development 14:677-96. Stark, O., 1976. Rural-to-urban migration and some economic issues: a review utilizing findings of surveys and empirical studies covering the 1965-1975 period. Working Paper No. 38, Population and Employment Project, World Employment Programme, International Labour Organization, Geneva. Stuart, J. and M. Kearney, 1981. Causes and effects of agricultural labor migration from the Mixteca of Oaxaca to California. Working Papers in U^.-Mexican Studies. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego. Upton, M., 1973. Farm management in Africa. The principles of production and planning. London: Oxford University Press. Weist, R.E., 1979. Implications of international labor migration for Mexican rural development. In F. Camara and R. Kemper (Eds.), Migration across frontiers: Mexico and the United States. Contributions of the Latin American Anthropology Group, Vol. 3. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY. Wionczek, M., 1982. The roots of the Mexican American agricultural crisis: water resources development policies (1920-1970). Development and Change 13:365-99. Wood, C. H. and T. L McCoy, 1986. Migration, remittances and development: a study of Caribbean cane cutters in Florida. International Migration Review 19:251-77.

Implications of Overdependence on Women's Labor for Food Production in a Traditional Farming System of Anambra State, Nigeria E.C. Okorji and C.O.B. Obiechina Department of Agricultural Economics University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Introduction The significant contribution of women to the operation of traditional African farming systems is well known and documented (Adebusoye, 1980; Boserup, 1970; Chikwendu, 1980; Galletti, Baldwin, and Dina, 1956; Kisekka, 1980; Okorji, 1983; Spiro, 1980; Taylor, 1975). Numerous studies also show that these women are in the 35- to 50-year-old age bracket, and most are illiterate. What is not quite as well known or studied is the threat to food production posed by the increased education of women in rural or local government areas of Nigeria. Education and the associated mobility of women tend to reduce the ability and willingness of subsequent generations of women to contribute significantly to farm work. The focus of this study is to determine the utilization of male and female labor in a representative farming community so as to 1) identify relative labor contributions by gender, 2) recognize constraints to labor substitution, and 3) make recommendations for supplementing the expected decline of female labor in agricultural production.

Scope and Methodology The study area of Abakaliki represents a large portion of the humid, yam-produdng zone of Nigeria. Selected farm households were visited and family members were interviewed, at intervals of 2 weeks, during two 12-month periods—April 1981 to March 1982, and April 1983 to March 1984. These periods coincided with the farm year. Stratified sampling techniques were used to obtain the final number of households for the study. Out of an estimated 2,500 farming households in the Abakaliki area composed of about 30,000 people, 417 households were selected on the basis of crop-mixture enterprises and resource allocation. Next, a random sampling of 48 fanning households were drawn from the 417 households. The sampled households were from the four villages of Ndiekpe, Obovu, Abarigwe, and Okaria in the Odageri-Edda community. Twelve households were also randomly selected from each of the four villages and frequently visited and interviewed. Twelve men, all household heads, were selected and interviewed from each of the four villages on a biweekly basis during both 12-month periods. In addition, 12 women, all first