Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2115/65933

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how policy changes included in the former "Direct Payment Program for Paddy Field Farming and Upland Farming" affected individual upland farming. Three conclusions were reached: 1) In order to reduce production costs, it is more effective to raise yields than to expand production scale. However, the "Direct Payment Program for Paddy-Field Farming and Upland-Farming" failed to reduce production costs because it did not stimulate production. On the other hand, he implementation of the "Individual-household Income Support System" has stimulated increased production, which appears to have encouraged cost reductions. 2) Under the former program, there appears to have been little correlation between the profitability ofcrops and quantity of labor input required. Therefore, the area of wheat and beans brought under cultivation increased because they are labor saving. It is assumed that the new program will not be correct this situation. 3) In order to provide stability for large-scale farming, it will be necessary to promote structural improvements in the new system such as providing additional payments for establishing specific production goals and accumulating additional farmland.