Price Responsiveness of Marketed Surplus of Wheat in Pakistan
The crucial. role of the marketed surplus of foodgrains in the process of development has been generally recognized. A knowledge of the determinants of.the marketed quantities of food is essential for designing price and tax policies for the agricultural sector. This knowledge is required for estimating the food availability for the urban sector and for forecasting the required level of foodgrains imports in anyone year. In the caSe of crops wbich are wholly or almost wholly marketed the elasticities of output and market supply can be regarded as approximately equal. But in the case of crops a substantial part of whose output is retained by peasants for self consumption, the responsiveness of the marketed surplus must be measured separately from tbe responsiveness of output. Food crops in Pakistan constitute a major part of farm production and almost sixty per cent of grain output is. consumed by farm families themselves.
Price and Output Response of Marketed Surplus of Foodgrains: A Cross-Sectional Study of Some North Indian Villages
If foodgrains producers are also the major consumers, price elasticity of production and price elasticity of marketed surplus should be distinguished. While the former is likely to be positive, the latter may theoretically assume either sign, and this introduces a complication in deriving the long-run price elasticity of marketed surplus. Village-level, cross-sectional data are used to get a direct regression estimate of the short-run price elasticity of marketed surplus for northwest India. The estimate seems to indicate negative elasticity. Other variables with statistically significant influence on marketed surplus are production level of foodgrains and income from milk.
The development of biological systematics : Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, nature, and the natural system
A reevaluation of the history of biological systematics that discusses the formative years of the so-called natural system of classification in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Shows how classifications came to be treated as conventions; systematic practice was not linked to clearly articulated theory; there was general confusion over the "shape" of nature; botany, elements of natural history, and systematics were conflated; and systematics took a position near the bottom of the hierarchy of sciences.