Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/476

 458 HAROLD H. MAIN ss possible data can obtained. uniform, so ha a large now be obtained, and the range o! number d variation But by the use of such forms as are before you, I feel I can ascertain and see how far conditions are uniform and how far the amount d work done can be compared each case it will be noted measure calculate during the work doue in from this to the a usual working day. in different places. In that I have arranged to one hour, and then to amount of work done There is one difficulty which is almost peculiar to agricultural work which makes difficult such measures o! the work done by a worker m a normal day's work. This is the fact that in most agricultural work you have animals and men co-operating. How much o! the efficiency or lack o! efficiency is due to the man or men involved, and how much is due to the animals ? If we compare a man's work in ploughing, for ins- rance, in India wih that o! a man in America, how much o! the greater work done in America is due to the fct that horses are used instead o! bullocks,-- leading to quicker work, and possibly to better work. As a consideration o! this point would necessitate s preliminary study into the relative efficiency of different types o! animal labor, and for this I have no facility at present, I feel I mus for the moment abandon the idea of getting st the absolute efficiency of the man himself, and only consider what he c. sn do under the conditions of equipment under which he finds himself. I want to-day simply to present the results of a few tests of the average day's work done in ploughing. Now the work done in determined, even apart when (1) the depth of the furrow, the block of soil moved at each this operation can only be from differences of soil etc., (l) the width of movement of the