INTERSECTORAL TERMS OF TRADE 27 NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Much of the empirical data of the late 1970s resolves into a question of the choice of base and end years.See R. Thamarajakshi, 'Role of Price Incentives in Stimulating Agricultural Production', in D.Ensminger (ed.), Food Enough or Starvation for Millions, Tata Mcgraw Hill, New Delhi, 1977; Ashok Mitra, Terms of Trade and Class Relations, Frank Cass, London,1977; and D.S.Tyagi, 1979. 2. Ibid. 3. See Alain de Janvry and Subbarao, Agricultural Price Policy and Income Distribution in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1986. 4. A.S.Kahlon and D.S.Tyagi, Agricultural Price Policy in India, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1983. 5. Dalip S.Swamy and Ashok Gulati, 'From Prosperity to Retrogression: Indian Cultivators During the 1970s', Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Agriculture, June 1986. 6. Op.cit. 7. Sukhamoy Chakravarthy, 'Some Reflections on the Growth Process in the Indian Economy', ILR, reprinted in C.Wadhwa (ed.). Second Edition, 1^74; 'On the Question of the Home Market and Prospects for Economic Growth', Economic and Political Weekly, Special No., August 1979. 8. This view has been questioned by Raj Krishna ('Some Aspects of Agricultural Growth, Price Policy and Equity in Developing Countries', Food Research Institute Studies, in press) and Kahlon and Tyagi (op.cit), who argue that 'market price has been the leader price and procurement price a reluctant follower', especially since the early 1970s. 9. Sen and Maynard develop this argument—Sen specifically for the Indian case. See Abhijit Sei\,The Agriculture Constraint to Economic Development: The Case of India, Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge, 1981; and Geoffrey Maynard, Economic Development and the Price Level, Macmillan, London, 1962. 10. Op.cit. 11. Sen, op.cit. 12. It could be argued that this decline is a statistical illusion, in that actual profits have been disguised by reporting some proportion of them as elements of cost. However, there may be other reasons for this evident decline, despite relatively lower agricultural prices. Furthermore, the data used (value added — wages / gross value of output) minimise tne possibility of such under-estimation of mark-up. 13. Op.cit, 1974. 14. A slight increase is evident in recent years for non-departmental, non-financial enterprises. 15. Op. cit. 16. Op.dt. 17. Op.cit. 18. Raj Krishna quoted in ibid., p.31. 19. Op. dt. 20. It is noteworthy that the only state where cultivators experienced an improvement in price margins over cost, Tamilnadu, was also one which experienced zero rate of growth of foodgrains output in this period. Compare Table 5. 21. D.S.Tyagi, 'Domestic Terms of Trade and Their Effect on Supply and Demand for the Agricultural Sector', Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Agriculture, March 1987, p.A33. 22. Ibid. 23. He estimates the relevant elasticities to be 0.56 for wheat, 0.58 for cotton, and 0.86 in the case of paddy. 24. Op.cit. 25. Op.cit.,p.93. 26. Op.cit, 1974. 27. Op.dt. 28. C.Rangarajan, Agricultural Growth and Industrial Performance in India, IFPRI, Washington D.C, 1982; 'Industrial Growth: Another Look', Economic and Political Weekly, Annual No., 1982. 29. This conclusion is similar to that of Dandckar looking at per capita foodgrain consumption in kilograms. See V.M. Dandckar, 'Agriculture, Employment and Poverty', Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Agriculture, Sept 1986.